Greetings to the men of ROK this week.
In the comments of my last article, a commenter suggested that even if religion was not exactly true, it still contained some helpful things (not my view, of course). Another man rejoined that most people were not intelligent enough to separate the good from the bad, making religion essentially undesirable in society. I responded:
Most people are not intelligent enough to manage any complex system properly.
It is why the healthiest societies have usually involved a give and take between an healthy aristocracy that created an high culture and led by example, and a populace that strove to be moral rather than “intellectual.”
The idea of “educating” and exalting “the people,” has simply destroyed high culture and exalted the vulgar tastes of vulgar persons who, over-reaching their station in life, desire to enjoy the feeling of impersonating an elite, without having the capacity to be one.
My interlocutor misunderstood me as asserting an inverse ratio between education and morality. It is to this that I wish to respond, because this is at the center of my concept of a true “Return of Kings,” and of the intended scope of my articles, before I have to cease contributing in the coming year. So, this is a “sneak peak” of the future.
I will also preface my remarks by saying that, even if my ideas on society and modern, European history are not exactly inchoate, they are not highly advanced, either. I avoid applying the label “Neoreactionary” to myself, because I do not presently have the leisure to devote as much time as I would like to Carlyle, Evola, Moldbug and other more recent thinkers; it is despicable to claim association with a philosophical school, if one cannot be bothered to read its canon and understand it. Nor, though I of course know something about the subjects, am I presently free to devote as much time as I would like to the finer points of the history of the Protestant, French, Socialist and Communist revolutions.
My duty at present is to prepare for seminary studies, so my perspective on the crisis of modernity comes primarily from a theological and philosophical perspective. A “big picture” is emerging for me of the story of Western Civilization over the past five centuries, which grows clearer every day. But it is not yet crystal clear.
To begin, then:
Virtue and (Pseudo)-Intellectualism
My statement that an healthy society’s populace strives to be “moral rather than ‘intellectual,’” was not intended to imply that there is some sort of opposition or inverse relation between the two in society. Indeed, true education is necessarily moral. The reason I put “intellectual” in quotes, was to indicate that this desideratum of modern society is not authentically intellectual at all.
The political ideologies and theories that have driven the chaos of the past centuries were always rooted in vain pretenses of pseudo-intellectualism; no person or class of persons is wise enough to manage such a chaotic element in a society; the masses, especially (including somewhat clever folk), will never understand what these theories pretend to know. The intrusion into daily life of pseudo-intellectual ideology, and of modern “politics,” is itself unnatural and constitutive of a crisis.
Voltaire – a Perfect Example of a Fool Too Clever by Half
In the past, society worked by a more natural give and take between an exemplary high culture, and the general populace attracted by that example to the emphasis upon virtue and transcendence. In practice, we see that even well-crafted, ideological theories of governance are powerless, unless the populace itself is virtuous. Similarly, many theoretical shortcomings are ameliorated by a virtuous populace. The chief aim of a society should therefore be prudently to encourage virtue and punish vice, for then the battle is more than half-won, whereas all the “rights” you could care to claim will not save you from a vicious society. If virtue is first, true liberty will follow; if anything is put before virtue—even “liberty”—then nothing will stand for long.
Moreover: virtue is within every man’s competence, and it is as beautiful in the peasant’s home as it is in the royal chapel. So an aristocratic society, where the elites cultivate the exemplary, high culture of virtue and transcendence, attracting the common man in turn to his natural and supernatural end, is a very natural character for a society to have, even though virtue is difficult.
But to truly attain a liberal education, which is the traditional and indispensable education of the aristocracy (because it is “liberal” not in the sense of being “Left,” obviously, but of being conducive to maximizing true liberty—not license—in one’s self and in society), one needs, in addition to sufficient virtue, the gifts of a keen intellect and sufficient prosperity for the means of education. These are not in the competence of most people.
Thus, not many men will become truly fit to govern a society that upholds authentic rights and freedom; to base a society on this assumption is unnatural in the extreme. The accrued wisdom of the aristocratic tradition can supply some lack, thank God. Still, to understand and to act well upon this tradition, especially beyond one’s private sphere, is not the lot of the masses.
Flawed Premises and Ends
The shift from the emphasis on virtue to an emphasis on “empowering” people with a pretense of education and “equitable” distribution of capital, is complex. To be overly brief, it can be tied to the development of the Bourgeoisie—the upper-middle class in the increasingly prosperous, Western civilization. They were prosperous enough folk to have a little too much and way too little knowledge. They came within striking distance of the nobility. Doubtless, not every nobleman was an exemplar of noble blood; many upper-middle class persons naturally felt quite superior to some of them, and resented their positions. As the Bourgeoisie grew more successful, they merely made formal what was already true, informally. In the words of Frederic Grunfeld:
“The government remained monarchic and aristocratic; the economy had passed into the hands of merchants, lawyers, manufacturers, and engineers-all legally barred from enjoying the prerogatives reserved for the nobility -a privileged elite that, together with the clergy, constituted less than one percent of the population in a nation of twenty-four million. The French Revolution, therefore, was essentially the chaotic and often violent process by which political power passed into the hands of those who already possessed economic power. In the words of one modem historian, it made “the bourgeoisie mistress of the world.” – The French Kings
The expanding wealth and knowledge of the middle class occurred during the old order of the Church and the nobility; rather than impeding education and prosperity, the Ancien Régime was too successful in fostering it! To credit revolutionaries with creating this (when in fact their chaos disrupted the process for some time), and to blame the aristocracy for impeding it, is wrong and unjust.
To justify the overthrowing of the nobility and its traditional culture of virtue and transcendence, we adapted a rhetoric and a culture of egalitarianism, assuming that all men were “equal” in the raw, and, given the opportunity (via education and prosperity), would govern themselves wisely and well. Hence two powerful engines of egalitarianism are universal education and the redistribution of wealth. As reality increasingly disproves this absurd, revolutionary thesis, the goal of equal opportunity is increasingly revised to mandate the expectation of equality of outcomes. Equality is mandatory, lest the theory be falsified!We, the intelligent and educated, know that our theories can’t be false!
A “caregiver” stays with my grandmother on the farm for a couple hours in the middle of the day; sometimes she watches Dr. Phil or Dr. Oz, and there are frequent commercials featuring bimbos who want to improve themselves by attending online college in their pajamas. And this illustrates the situation rather well; skip motherhood, ride the carousel, get an online degree in Communications and prepare for a life of depressing, hedonistic nihilism followed by crippling spinsterhood.
We have abandoned a sane society oriented towards virtue and transcendence for an insane society where the Economy is the supreme end, and the means for attaining it are “education,” vice and frequently superfluous “work.” Even women are indulged in their flimsiest pretentions towards “educated” and “independent” status. Nobody notices that these people have not been “educated” in the sense formerly understood to be indispensable for such an involvement in public affairs. The Universities no longer provide this education; they are vocational schools for people without vocations.
Just think what we’d miss out on, if this gal were not empowered to enjoy an education.
The abolition of virtue and the high standards of aristocratic hierarchy is an ongoing devastation. Temporary gains via technology (which would have continued under aristocracy) improved the material comfort of our lives; but the loss of virtue threatens worse calamities. The obsession with The Economy, to the exclusion of the more profound crisis of the West, tells the whole story. I don’t want to be mistaken for a Leftist or a Communist, simply because I use the term “bourgeoisie” and criticize the obsession with the Economy; I condemn Communism, though Capitalism and Communism are just two sides of the same coin, if in “Capitalism” you include the modern, unnatural tendency to generate or accrue capital that is not tied to real wealth (through usury, fiat currency, etc.).
To sum up: the masses are never really going to become truly educated, and so are never going to be fit for making wise judgments on sublimely difficult matters of religion, philosophy, statecraft, etc.; this is why aristocracy and tradition exists. Only a society with warped priorities, reads that as an insult against the masses.
Indeed, the society with egalitarian pretenses dooms the masses to the tragedy of pretending at qualities and achievements they can never truly attain (with all the political tension that promises), whereas a more sane view can find true dignity even in an illiterate scullery maid. Hence my articles emphasize such things as: 1) enjoying the traditions and culture of the West, which supplies much of what is lacking to us, by setting us on the shoulders of the great men of our past; 2) clear, simple thought on first principles; 3) developing personal virtue and a connection to the transcendent, so as to become the best men we can be.
If some of us are capable of rising to be a new aristocracy, it will be through virtue, a careful education and other, gratuitous gifts of nature’s God; if not all of us can rise to that level, virtue at least confers upon us something of immense dignity, and our greatest possible share of nobility, truly empowering us to rule ourselves and our immediate sphere of influence well. In any time, but especially ours, such a feat is aristocratic at least by participation—a veritable “Return of Kings.”
Blessed Karl of Austria, a king worthy of his crown.
Read More: Why Are People So Polarized By Politics And Morality?
May be the cynical side of me but something tells me that the individual who tried to create an inverse correlation between intellect and morality was being disingenuous and really just had a chip on his shoulder about religion.
The thought occurred to me. But why not point out to him the obvious fact, that if we threw away everything people weren’t intelligent enough to handle, we’d have to throw out very much, indeed?
an old friend of mine once told me “life is unfair to everybody, so in a way it’s fair to everybody.”
everyone is equal on the grounds that in the end, we are all human. however to me the buck stops there.
because not everyone is going to apply themselves equally in every area of life, and not everyone will have equal desires and the will to achieve what they want out of life through sheer perseverance and effort.
And not everyone is born with equal capacities, no matter how hard they work or how high they aim.
nope, some people are born handicapped. some people are born geniuses. but at the end of the day, we are all born human and if you truly want, anything is possible. so in that sense we are all equal. the rest is up to you.
you’ve got people like stephen hawking bound to a wheel chair for life, that have accomplished more than alot of able bodied people ever will. jay z was born dirt poor. hell, the patriarch of the rothschild family lived in an amsterdam ghetto before he started currency trading. henry ford had a 6th grade education and my mother still drives a car with his name on it. and the big kicker is, donald trump will probably be elected president. if these people can make it anyone can.
the examples are endless. you can either make it in life or you can make excuses about why you didn’t make it in life(limited capacities being one of them), but you can’t do both. you are only limited by you, proper action, and your willingness to persevere. but you won’t get anywhere with a defeatist attitude.
You agreed with what he said in the first two sentences, then you completely undid it in the next sentence with some pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo. And of course, because it is mumbo jumbo, the only examples given were of financial rags-to-riches, which further proves the original point of the article: the bourgeoisie want to be aristocratic, but don’t have anything on their mind but sex and money.
Religion, philosophy and statecraft, as Aurelius Moner suggested, can only be cultivated by a few, and that’s partly because not everyone is created equal. While we can suggest it as ‘intellectual capacity’, it bottles it down to a mere concept of brain power or intelligence, which it probably isn’t.
But case in point, if all the examples you want to give are Henry Ford and Jay-Z, you’re probably part of the masses, somewhere between the peasants and the bourgeoisie that is fixated on personal security and financial wealth.
There will be a new generation of aristocrats though, who aren’t fixated on small things. They will only come to prominence after the implosion of civilization.
it’s pseudo intellectual mumbo jumbo to say that we are all human? it’s pseudo intellectual mumbo jumbo for a cripple to succeed, for a guy born in some of the worst housing projects to succeed? it’s pseudo intellectual for henry ford to have a 6th grade education and succeed on the level that he did? it’s pseudo intellectual for donald trump of all ppl to probably president of the united states, and for the founder of the one of the richest families in history to succeed after living in ghetto in amsterdam?
let me guess in your world money is not power? the most wealthy ppl don’t wield the most power? then why the fuck are ppl always whining about the elite? get out of your dream world and come to reality man. money = power. power = influence. influence = control. don’t believe me? ask donald trump.
do you know how much money the vatican has? does the catholic church not wield power?
man you are making yourself look silly. do you know what the exact definition of pseudo intellectual is? not the casual version, but the actual dictionary definition?
all of you are overthinking this. religion is not difficult at all. it is a control system. not anymore difficult than threatening a child with a monster in the closet. they both operate on the same level.
if after everything I stated all you saw was jay z, henry ford, and imitating the bourgeoisie, you are the prime example of why ppl like you will forever be where you are. excuses for why you can’t make it on top of excuses for why you can’t make it. stuck in limbo. you are the definition of a defeatist attitude and “limited capacities”. I’m not sure if you live in america or not, but just because you were born a pleb does not mean you have to die a pleb in this country. lesser people than you have made something outstanding of their lives, and yes some of them even occupy political or religious office.
You may very well think all these things. I couldn’t possibly comment.
if you can’t disprove it with facts and examples, fake the high road. pathetic.
I admire your spirit, and certainly people can overcome certain obstacles. But, Stephen Hawking succeeded because he had a fine mind.
If he was a gimp and a moron, no amount of perseverance would have helped him!
I agree, and, just to be clear, I don’t regard intellect as sufficient, as many smart people are utterly unfit to rule. Intellect, virtue, prudence and fidelity in regards to tradition – honestly, real-life experience with battle and life-or-death situations is probably indispensable, as well – these are the difficult but compulsory attributes.
if “if” was a fifth, you and I would both be drunk as hell right now mr. moner.
a few years back there was this black guy who was visibly retarded, and ugly to boot. I wish I could think of his name, but he was that guy that made all of the “got em!” videos on the web. (edit: it was welvin da great)
a few months later, he was hosting parties and banging chicks with dan bilzerian or however you spell his name.
point is, even those with both mental and physical “limits” on their capacities have even risen above the fray. you can either make it in life, or you can make excuses about why you didn’t make it in life — but you can’t do both.
I don’t believe that you have to be particularly smart or gifted to take part in religion or politics(would love to see clergymen all take iq test and politicians also). you just have to know how to speak and play to the main things people want and their fantasies (i.e. preachers/donald trump). as complex as we think we are as people. we are pretty simple when you boil it all down.
You are arguing a completely different point than the one discussed in this article. No one is denying that it’s possible to become rich, powerful, or successful with a lot of perseverance. The point of the article was that the attainment of wealth or pretty does not make one fit to lead.
The people you described went from rags to riches, but in all of these cases (IMO), they lacked the virtue necessary in a true leader. Jay Z isn’t imitating the bourgeoise, he IS the bourgeoise. The point of the article is that despite being extremely successful, Jay Z should not be the one guiding the philosophical development of the west, a simple concept that for some reason escapes most people nowadays.
Br. Aurelius’s argument is that a very rare selection of individuals are blessed with the gifts necessary for a truly great leader or philosopher.
well naturally there are only handful of people that would even want to lead, let alone run the gauntlet to become a great leader.
I’m more so focusing on the fact that despite limited capacities, or having limited education, many have risen to become capable leaders. some good, some bad. and that usually happens through amassing a hefty amount of money. money IS power in the end.
donald trump is a good example of this.
although, I would say he is fairly well educated. but had he not amassed the fortune that he has, he would not be anywhere close to being in the position that he is in.
what a person perceives to be a good philosophy ultimately boils down to their personal values and life experiences. everyone will not agree on one philosophical ideology.
Well, that’s my point; the retarded black guy is doing something that a sane society would jail him for doing. He hasn’t “risen above” the fray; he is just one more example of the degenerate, functionally illiterate celebrity class.
I’m talking about doing more than “playing to the main things people want and their fantasies.” Indeed, that’s precisely what I’m advocating against.
he would be jailed for making prank videos? I want no part in a society that would jail ppl for making comedy videos. he hasn’t risen above the fray? lol ok man.
functionally illiterate celebrity class? smh.
what exactly is the more that you would do, just out of curiosity?
“no matter how hard they work or how high they aim.’
Maybe not born with them, but people can certainly increase they’re capacities and what they can do through work and self improvement.
Well, we’re probably talking past each other. The definition of “capacity” is “how much something CAN hold.” I use it to mean a person’s maximum potential, assuming they do everything they can and enjoy all the advantages possible. So, if somebody’s genes put him in the IQ 110 range, no matter how hard he works and improves himself, he is never going to have the capacity to think in the way that someone with an IQ of 150 could. If somebody is 5′ 6″, he doesn’t have the same capacity for certain physical feats that a 6′ 7″ man would have. Hard work can do a lot, but not everything.
Also worth reading – Equality: The Impossible Quest by Creveld
https://www.amazon.com/Equality-Impossible-Martin-van-Creveld-ebook/dp/B00UVLE20W
Equality is a misnomer. Charity, as in using one’s gifts to benefit all those around oneself, is a better term. Christians have a Christ-given responsibility to feed the poor and cure the sick.
Boom! I like that. Charity instead of equality.
There is considerable merit in the idea of a reanimated monarchy, though monarchies have had their own problems over the centuries. The worst of them is the deterioration of monarchic lines over time, such that a line that produced a true avatar of the virtues degenerates over three or four generations to a gaggle of mere indolent voluptuaries. In other words, we must solve the succession problem, which was not solved by hereditary primogeniture, before monarchy would be a guaranteed improvement over contemporary kakistocracy. The thoughts expressed here might be helpful.
“The worst of them is the deterioration of monarchic lines over time, such that a line that produced a true avatar of the virtues degenerates over three or four generations” Despite how many people talk of this, I don’t know of any dynastic houses that collapse 3 generations in. They almost all collapse after the the death of the first patriarch or have a very slow decline, or some cases, such as that of the house of Wettin (Commonweath relm and Belgium), have become constitutionally bonded heads of state (basically meaning they are powerless).
“which was not solved by hereditary primogeniture” I think what you would support then is an electoral monarchy. Meaning that a collegiate of the aristocracy chooses from it’s self a family or person who will rule.
I think Venice had that system. And it seems to have worked comparatively well.
Yes, it was quite popular during the mid medieval to early modern era (roughly 1000-1700) with small states, and it was also used by the Holy Roman empire. It is very interesting system.
Can this electoral system scale?
With size? Maybe. The only large country I know of to use it was the holy roman empire. It’s biggest problem was the electors were the monarchs of each state within the Holy Roman Empire, and each state had too much sovereignty and power, so the Holy Roman Empire was never very unified.
The monarch of the HRE was merely considered a figurehead.
I believe it’s a warning for not getting too big. Societies seem to suffer when the monarch has to overreach
“The monarch of the HRE was merely considered a figurehead.” Towards the end, yes. It lost power over time though, becoming more and more ceremonial.
“I believe it’s a warning for not getting too big.” What? How? It didn’t have enough centralization, that is why it collapsed. There were litterally different regions within it that would be at war, and the Imperial government couldn’t do shit about it.
The best example of what you suggest is the Papacy, and that’ s had some troubles too; consider the Renaissance Popes. Perhaps there is no fully reliable solution.
Not to be defeatist, but there is no eternal solution. The fallen nature of man guarantees no one system is foolproof.
That being said, secular Christian monarchy was the best system the world ever had. The merits of Western civilization began there. Fat chance we’ll willingly go back, however. There’s always a fall after pride.
The Vatican city is one small function of the pope, and being the way the papacy works (it’s a religious state and doesn’t operate functions in the same matter that secular states do), it’s actually a really bad example. There are plenty of examples of this model, and there is no single “best example”. Venice is a good example. The Holy Roman Empire is a good example. The Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania, there are lots of examples.
Yes, I’ve noted the problems of succession, both on hereditary primogeniture and with an elected monarchy. It seems they both have strengths and weaknesses. I have to admit that I have not thought enough about it, yet, to have any opinion worth expressing.
I figured a monarchy just for the fact there is really only one person to revolt against, as opposed to 545 persons in the US.
Aurelius is it your position that the ideal government be Plato’s vision of a philosopher king?
Also I think that in all the revolutions that have occurred which have overthrown the various monarchies of Europe over the last several hundred years the masses have never ruled. They have just chosen one group of elites to replace another. And I agree with you in so much that as the new elites became more and more divorced from the old aristocracies nefarious elements gained more power within them till we have what we have today.
I personally view the idea of rule by a group of priests who promote virtue and give charitably as ideal. The form of governance would simply be suggestion rather than force. All those who are deemed immoral are ostracized and kicked out of the society. They aren’t fed, clothed, housed or even acknowledged. That enough can be used as threat.
I would encourage you to reflect upon your statement. How will you compel persons to leave, and deny them food, clothing or housing, without the use of force?
By instilling in others a desire to ostracize those who break rules egregiously. Eventually, as one’s natural desire for food and social validation overcomes one’s constitution, the person will rectify. I saw this work marvelously in my time in the Phillipines (a place where the Church reigns supreme). Filipinos would ignore completely someone that had made an infraction. They eventually rectified.
That isn’t Christianity. Go read the New Testament. The Philippines is a 3rd world country with a pretty high crime rate, that system doesn’t seem to work too well for them.
Theocracy? Anyways, kicking people out of society is the exactly opposite of Christianity…
No, because I don’t think that will ever exist for anything like a sustainable period of time. You’re lucky if one philosopher-king comes around every few centuries.
But, a monarchy with a wealth of wise counsellors and a quiver-full of fighting men with consciences, bound by an aristocratic tradition and a firm sense of noblesse oblige towards a populace whose common good they strive truly to value… such things can and have happened. It’s as good as it can get for any length of time.
But it is the nature of this world that change and decay come to all things. Strive for the good; resign one’s self to what must be accepted. That’s as good as it gets.
While Plato’s philosopher-king could rival a female power fantasy of the ideal man, the template for a philosopher-king can be instilled into a royal line.
Being born, raised and compelled to rule is quite a thing, perhaps more so than any of us could ever attempt to write about. But, a hereditary monarchy with wise counsellors (who have knowledge and experience, but little in the way of executing authority) seems the most prosperous way to govern a nation. At least, it’s previously been the case.
It can, however, be undone with the inevitable weak successor. The last French monarch, Louis XVI, was simply the wrong man at the wrong time. Had he had the iron will of Napoleon, the Ancien Regime may have never disappeared.
Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
Ideally; really, even equality of opportunity is difficult to attain. I’m all for maximizing opportunity for all, but not at the expense of the legitimate right.
Like so many of the neocon propositions created to replace genuine conservative thought, that one cleverly mimics Christian themes in its elocution, yet fabricates an illogical and immoral construct.
It is particularly insidious in that it was created to provide cuckservatives with a virtue signaling phrase to curry favor with radical leftists.
We can no more create an equality of opportunity than we can an equality of outcomes or an equality of unequal persons.
The most basic exposure of the illogic is that a person with more intelligence, or even simply better perceptions will find opportunity where a lesser man will not.
It is inherently immoral to construct a society where perceptive individuals must surrender the opportunities they discover to provide the less perceptive with the feel goods of accessing the pilfered opportunity.
Rather to say, we are all entitled by our only true equality, that of our equal standing in God’s eyes, to seek the best and most virtuous life that is within our individual capacity. And to construct a society wherein men are at liberty to do so.
The lesser of us benefiting from the greater capacity of the more talented in the natural spillover effect which is evidently part of God’s plan for human happiness and social stability.
I prefer to use analogy:
There are two ways to win a race. You can run faster than the other guy, or you can trip him. Government should exist to limit tripping behavior, not to trip everyone.
The weak advocate equality so they can compete against the strong.
Even the strong now advocate for it so they can embody the seemingly easier life of the weak. Its a big circle jerk of misconception.
“But to truly attain a liberal education, which is the traditional and indispensable education of the aristocracy (because it is “liberal” not in the sense of being “Left,” obviously, but of being conducive to maximizing true liberty—not license—in one’s self and in society), one needs, in addition to sufficient virtue, the gifts of a keen intellect and sufficient prosperity for the means of education. These are not in the competence of most people.”
What a bitter, and profound thing to accept. It has been a truly painful thing for me Aurelius. The older generations really sold us on the attainability of such a thing. Its a shame so many other young men still believe this sort of experience awaits them.
Its like, at least in the US, a university experience is entirely detrimental. An indoctrination factory, a crippling infantilization of my generation and a massive racketeering scheme all under the same roof.
The machine of ‘Big Education’ in this country has really done a number on us.
Truth is often bitter; but if you choke it down, it turns sweet in the stomach.
What I’m gathering, is that a sort of ‘envy’ causes men to want it all. Maybe, rather, the thought that if they can be equal to someone who has a different station in life, by the capacity of their natural abilities, they can avoid envy, of the ‘higher’ class. Possibly even a fear of not being of the higher class and it spread throughout the populous. Making a rule of equality rather than the more rational idea of staying in the place you were put by God. The Root cause being envy and the pursuit to avoid it. yes, no?
All Classes of people have burdens, whether physical or mental. For the most part, the Intellectual couldn’t handle the physical toils and vice versa (Look at Mexicans and the labor they do and happy to do so and the average Americans’ thought that none of their citizens would do that work) . This idea of being equal is such a catalyst for chaos its ridiculous, along with the misinterpretation and disassociation of the word “freedom”.
Great write up, but it does show me that we are further off from a proper society that people can possibly imagine.
Oscar Wilde is possibly not the first author you’d remember about this, but nonetheless,
Hard not to have Kim Jung Un pop in my head when I read this.
Careful, lest he unleashes his equally gout-ridden assasins on ye
Everybody says they want “freedom”. The difference is, most people think that Freedom means “FreeSTUFF”. And those people are in a constant war against those who actually do want freeDOM.
Life is and has mostly been an attempt by individuals to stockpile as many resources as they can before death. The methods just change through time.
Many people also mistake “doing what I want” for “freedom.”
Lots of points, don’t know where to start except……
Think the Voltaire archetype is why so many people hate the French. Desire to be cultured, sophisticated, marxist, to show the leftism. But this professing of leftism is a tool for aristocratic superiority.
A commie artistocrat is a popular French ideal !
Socondly, I have my own issues with authority. Grew up protestant, attend Eastern Orthodox. But do not formally join because it is not clear in my mind whether the authority of the priest is a legitimate submission to a spiritual hierarchy or a NWO phenomenon.
Related. Should Louis 16 have been guillotined ? The issue still bothers me.
(I wish M de Charette were reading)
“Grew up protestant, attend Eastern Orthodox. But do not formally join because it is not clear in my mind whether the authority of the priest is a legitimate submission to a spiritual hierarchy or a NWO phenomenon.” Every real religion in history that has ever existed has authority figures. It is part of the old world order. If anything the pseudo religion of self guidance that is Protestantism is a”new” part of the world order, not traditional hierarchical religion.
I really like the Eastern Orthodox faith because its idea of authority is based on competence rather than executive power. The bishops suggest courses of action rather than enforce them.
Yes, that sounds great…
Unless, like me, you inform your Orthodox bishop that your abbot is banging dudes, the bishops “suggests” that he take a break and consider resigning (but then does nothing about it), and then he comes back and gets arrested during the parish’s festival week during maximum news coverage for trying to bang underage boys.
A bishop’s job is not to advise; it is to govern and teach with authority. Authority acts when necessary; they share a root term.
Good point.
Ironically, we (I am Hellenic [Greek] orthodox) actually have quite a bit more theological unity than the Catholics… Although, the Bishops do have power, but it’s not the same way that Catholic bishops have have supreme power.
You blatantly ignore that this same problem has also happened in the Catholic Church. In fact, it has it’s own Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases
Not that it is a rampant problem in Catholicism, statistically it’s still pretty low. But it is not as if Catholicism has found a magic solution. In addition, at that time it was 100% in the bishops authority to step in. He should have excommunicated him, and either forced him to get mental help and if he refuses, call the police, and you should know that.
I think Aurelius is confusing Eastern Orthodoxy with Catholicism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases
Not to smear Catholicism or anything, in fact the rate of catholic priests being pedophiles is actually quite low, but it’s not like this is something that is isolated to one sect of Christianity and Catholicism has an answer…
I’m not blatantly ignoring it; I’ve spoken about it explicitly many times.
I was responding specifically to the idea that it is better for bishops to advise than to rule. Their job is to govern the Church. Mentioning that abuse happens in other places was not at all relevant. I shared my own experience.
I’m not confusing anything. I cited that because it actually happened to me, when I was Orthodox.
I don’t imagine there’s a soul on earth, unaware of the incessant attention to child abuse in the Conciliar church.
Thanks, I am stuck between protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy. If not for the current pope, I would consider catholicism.
I heard an interesting boradcast last night. That Benedict was forced out, and thereby, is still pope by canonical law. As a pope cannnot be forced out.
So who is the real pope ?
“If not for the current pope, I would consider catholicism.” Don’t. Catholicism is a mess and it’s dying for a reason. The current pope I don’t have a big issue with, but overall Catholicism just fails to have theological unity and has too much weird dogmatism. The only Catholics I can currently take seriously are the Eastern Catholic Church’s, which are pretty much just eastern orthodox church’s that “reconciled” with the Catholic Church for political reasons (e.g. to avoid be killed/persecuted).
“So who is the real pope ?” Depends. As far as I know he wasn’t forced out, he resigned for health reasons. I don’t know if Catholic Cannon have rules against that anyways, ask Moner or some other Catholic…
I just don’t buy their idolatry. Although I am sympathetic. I am actually more supportive of their hierarchical structure than the Roman Catholic system.
Education can often be used to rationalize unvirtuous behaviour.
Education is essentially drilling the same kind of intelligence a donkey has in pulling a cart. Do exactly what you’re told in the way you’re told.
Modern schooling is, yes; a real education (from Latin “e-ducere”) is designed to draw out a person’s innate capacity for understanding, knowledge and wisdom.
Modern leftist schooling is not designed to promote understanding or wisdom. Knowledge, maybe. It is designed to breed a person to do a specific task, not learn how teach oneself specific tasks.
“Modern leftist schooling”
You can thank the Prussians and the US late 19th century progressives for that.
I’d say in the last 20 years we’ve gotten further and further away from this and more into state indoctrination.
In my high we school many of the teachers would actively set aside the textbook and curriculum to allow debates or exploratory discussions on random topics and encourage us to research further on our own.
My nephew has told that this type of debate outside the “debating club” is strictly forbidden these days and could get you suspended or certainly in trouble. The teacher is little more than state propaganda agent feeding pablam to the students like “fags are ok etc.””
It is designed to breed a supplicant child ward of the state.
Current schooling is designed from what used to be a plan to turn everyone into a disposable populace for war purposes.
In our days, that seems to be its primary purpose!
Yes, no child left to be left alone, all to be coerced into the new religion of Political Rectitude. I don’t know if Christians ever wondered what it was like to be a Pagan in the late fourth century, to see their religion of culture disappear under the tyranny of a Judean heretical sect.
Now they know.
So here we stand now pitted against the vast forces arrayed to defend a false nobility operating with the mandate of a false new-religion.
The modern man (read woman, unenlightened, or blind) worships himself in an attempt to commune with the collective that is our modern society of global-interdependence.
In the pursuit of worthless material distractions, vice, and social acceptance above all other things, he will never become anything resembling wisdom, due to a predisposition toward acting in the manner of the group with the intent of gaining the favor of its emissaries.
I have said before, there is a new faith with its own pantheon of false-idols. Its altar is omnipresent and reaches all who will but look. Its public figures serve to distract the population as the noble class who displays no such form of enlightened conduct that once served as a beneficial and wholesome example of high standards to the masses.
We now have much the opposite.
In absence of virtue, we are all but slaves.
According to the Enlightenment “Man is the measure of all things”. Sounds Exalted but actually led to degeneration.
Yes, the celebrity class is a deliberately cultivated anti-aristocracy. They are the flashy people who go to all the important things, yet most of them are celebrated precisely for being vacuous, vicious degenerates. It is to nourish the suspicion of all manner of nobility in the souls of the people.
And with a wealth of infinite knowledge at our disposal, so many choose ignorance via apathy while taking cue from the false prophets of ‘progress.’ Suspicion need not even exist when there are so many dominating – and more palatable – distractions.
I don’t see what this article is trying to say. Is it proposing that we institute a sort of Aristocracy?
Lead by example.
What do you mean?
Basically, yes, I believe he’s saying that in the absence of such a class, we do not experience true freedom. Since one will not be created, I take from it that each man of virtue should lead from the front if he wishes to see any improvement in our world.
When the collapse comes, if we survive, the men who are intelligent, prepared, virtuous and martially competent will become de facto the new leadership. Even those who cannot rise so high, by focusing on virtue, become the best they can be, which is a dignity infinitely greater than being a credentialed office zombie for all of one’s adult life, even if one shovels horse dung for a living.
I’m saying that a society that enshrines virtue and excellence as its ideals, is a society that provides even the poorest and least educated people with a meaningful sense of dignity and purpose, whereas a society based on egalitarianism and universal “empowerment” of people to pilot the ship of state, produces an unnatural crisis of incessant, ideological and political turmoil without securing any of the things it claims to value.
“whereas a society based on egalitarianism” Egalitarianism in which context?
Yeah, we need better definitions here. What is meant by egalitarianism? This discussion was on Vox Day’s blog several months ago and it turned out we were talking past each other. What they defined as egalitarianism was not what I thought it was, which was the usual liberal definition.
Also, what is meant by virtue? To me, virtue means what old school people call “good character” (e.g. he’s a man of good character). I believe virtue is covered under the rubric of executive function these days. (future time orientation, delayed gratification, work ethic, conscientiousness, etc,).
On vox day? I believe I am misunderstanding something, how did you have a conversation on a person?
I meant his blog, silly.
The belief that men are equal amongst themselves, that women are equal amongst themselves and, generally, to men, that homosexuality is equal to actual sexuality, that transgenderism is equal to reality, and on and on and on…
I am a Catholic, so my concept of virtue is essentially the Classical conception of Western Civilization – the habitual training of the will towards the good. Justice, Wisdom, Fortitude and Temperance are the Cardinal Moral Virtues; Understanding, Knowledge and Wisdom are the Intellectual Virtues; Faith, Hope and Charity are the Theological Virtues contributed by Christianity; etc.
“The belief that men are equal amongst themselves” I mean HOW? Are you addressing people advocating creation of more opportunity, or people who want equality of outcome? Those are two radically different ideas.
I am saying that neither of those equalities exist, nor can they be made to exist; the attempt to create them involves grave injustice. People are inherently unequal – different intelligences, different physical capabilities, different personalities and upbringings, etc., etc., and so cannot avail themselves even of the same opportunities.
I support maximizing opportunities for all people in every moral way. But trying to give people the best opportunity you can, is different from pretending that people are equal to every opportunity.
I don’t believe, for example, in giving a fairly dim-witted, physically weak woman so much as the opportunity to try for an officer’s or combatant’s role in the army, or even to gain a college degree. Inevitably, the imprudent extension of such “opportunities” introduces the temptation to flatter them, lower standards, destroy the value of competent person’ degrees, remove the incentive to excel, etc. She does more good for herself and for society, by giving birth to a son – or, even better, several sons! What she wants is very unimportant compared to what really is and can be. I am for maximizing opportunities, and for trying to connect people with the best opportunities corresponding to their capacities; I am not for living in a world of pipe-dreams and the absurdity that ensues when we pretend pipe-dreams can come true.
“People are inherently unequal – different intelligences, different physical capabilities, different personalities and upbringings” Not as much as you think. If I were some sort of mad scientist with 100 healthy babies, and I trained them all to go for being engineers, most of them would be pretty good engineers. If I trained them all to be soldiers, most of them would be pretty good soldiers. IQ are heavily influenced by how good of access you have to nutrition, education, etc. Physical capabilities are heavily influenced by how often you work towards improving them. Most inequalities between are not inherent. Sure there will always be some inequalities in opportunity, but why not work to minimize these? Under your logic, we can’t stop all traffic deaths, so why bother wearing seat-belts at all?
“I don’t believe, for example, in giving a fairly dim-witted, physically weak woman ” I don’t care about sex and opportunities, I am talking about males. Women have evolved sense the dawn of time to do the specific task of being females (breeding). The point I am trying to make out is why would you want to create a privileged class (the aristocracy) and an unprivileged class (peasants)? Why would giving poor children access to education, or food, or housing be a bad thing?
How can reducing individual empowerment help the poor in any meaningful way?
The empowerment you are refering is called self respect though that is only earned by trials and over coming hardships. The bullshit of “empowerment” pushed though public instituions is lie and everyone knows it. The state encouraging medicorcracy is antoher sham as the state consolidates power.
What I meant by empowerment is access to lots of entrepreneurial opportunities as well as technological self-empowerment (e.g. treatments to cure aging as well as increase IQ and executive function). Of course the public institution definition of empowerment is horse-shit.
The process of building a successful business or career by definition involves lots of trial and hardship. What other definition of trial and hardship are you discussing here?
Well, there’s empowerment and there’s “empowerment.” I think abstract rights and egalitarian principles, actually provide the basis for a far more effective kind of enslavement.
Of course all people are not equal. Some are more capable than others. Some have greater cognitive ability and executive function than others. I think there is no argument about this.
The problem with this article is that it seems to be advocating fixed social classes that are specifically NOT meritocratic, however you choose to define meritocracy. Singapore, the only example of a successful non-democratic system in today’s world, is explicitly and apologetically a meritocracy.
As both an engineer and entrepreneur with an IQ in the mid 130’s (and an EF to match), I consider myself to be fully comparable to all but the most gifted individuals in either cognitive or athletic abilities. The notion that I would not be a natural part and possibly a second-class citizen to any such aristocracy is an obscenity to me.
The idea of having a system is is neither democratic nor meritocratic is nonsensical.
Singapore is democratic. The People’s Action Party is just extremely popular (enough to form a government for almost 50 years now), mainly because it’s so responsive to what the general populace wants. If they didn’t follow what the populace wanted, they wouldn’t be in power.
Singapore is democratic after a fashion. But it is a one party system. The PAP co-opts any idea that becomes sufficiently popular to be an influence. In any case, aristocracy is simply another term for oligarchy. Oligarchy by the most competent and intelligent is, of course, the best system of government. The question is how intelligence and competence is determined objectively, no mean feat.
My other point is that I don’t see the point of this article at all. Jerry Pournelle and many others have always said that free men are not equal and equal men are not free, a sentiment I think we all agree with. I fail to see how this article expands on this issue in any meaningful sense.
Nikola Tesla was far more creative and intelligent than JP Morgan. Yet Morgan (who was by no standards an idiot) had far more power in our society because he was bred to be a capitalist from birth by his father Junius.
Competence and political power are not mutually inclusive. Paris Hilton, a ditzy whore, has more influence over policy than individual geniuses who have nowhere near as much money as she does.
Ahh the evils of capitalism. Certainly better than socialism comparatively.
Neither is perfectly implemented but capitalism imperfectly implemented is comparatively better.
Capitalism is the pursuit of profit at all costs. Don’t give me the anarcho-capitalist line of “crony capitalism”.
The only truly ideal system is a system where giving is more important than receiving.
In a world of scarcity there is no such thing as your utopian idealism.
It only creates misery.
Scarcity is an illusion. I’ve seen monks who eat three simple meals a day and have no luxuries live idyllic lives and have seen rich people want to kill themselves.
All happiness is derived from within. It certainly helps to have resources to get there though.
Shows the importance of spirituality. A revolt against modernism.
The classical definition of oligarchy is misrule by the few, whereas the classical definition of aristocracy is proper rule by the few. (I.e., oligarchy : aristocracy as tyranny : monarchy).
The article’s point, beyond reiterating the obvious wisdom that people are not equal, was to point out that an explicitly aristocratic society is not simply run differently, but has an entirely different and more natural ethos, which provides people with a real, attainable means to personal dignity and a life free from constant ideological bickering, rather than dooming the populace to the constant political turmoil of chasing rainbows of equality.
“Capitalism” as currently implemented is not capitalism, but a form of wealth redistribution (i.e., covert Socialism and Communism). Capitalism, with a conscience, where fiat currency, monopolies, cronyism and globalism are squelched, is indeed better.
One does have to produce something to give it away…
The ideal system strikes a balance of virtue – industry, productivity, charity, justice. The ideal does not exist; but a society based on virtue, rooted in natural law, prohibitive of monopolies, globalism, etc., comes closest to it.
True enough, but even the Lord Himself saw that not all men would take this counsel. A statesman has to be similarly wise to the facts.
It depends on your definition of what constitute “proper” rule.
The best what to free people from constant ideological bickering is simply to minimize the scope and role of government in life. This, of course, is the intent of libertarianism.
I consider myself to be fully competitive to most other humans. As such, I would reject the rule of any aristocracy that did not automatically grant me membership in it. In terms of politics and governance, there is no other human that is superior to myself.
In any case, this issue (and that of much of the alt-right) is irrelevant. Technology (bio-engineering, 3-D printing, IT, etc.) is empowering the small to be on par with the large. Radical self-empowerment and decentralization is the wave of the future. Small self-interested groups will have the capacity for self-governance in the future. Large scale social institutions and meme (socialism, Christianity, etc. are rapidly becoming obsolete.
You should be replying to Raphael not me.
The sin nature can be summarized in two facts: the need for emotional validation and physical pleasure. Both of these are exacerbated to enormous degree by the current free-market capitalist liberal complex. Hence why righteousness has been eliminated almost completely.
“But it is a one party system.” Still doesn’t mean it’s not democratic. By the way, it isn’t a one party system. There are actually other parties and independents, it’s just that the PAP is extremely popular.
“Oligarchy by the most competent and intelligent is, of course, the best system of government. The question is how intelligence and competence is determined objectively, no mean feat.” Intelligence doesn’t mean being right. Intelligence is measure of cognitive ability (e.g. how fast you learn). I am sure Carl Marx, François-Marie Arouet (Voltaire), Benito Mussolini, and Adam Smith were all intelligent men, but all of them had different theories, ideas, and beliefs.
“I fail to see how this article expands on this issue in any meaningful sense.” I can actually somewhat agree with that.
Fiat Currency? How does fiat currency redistribute wealth? Also, what is wrong with wealth redistribution? The bible promotes wealth redistribution…
Ahh, the constant fight between capitalists and socialists where neither one is willing to stop for a second and realize the benefits of a mixed economy.
The USA has that “mixed economy” right now and it is terrible, it has devastated our nation.
There are no benefits to socialism.
“The classical definition of oligarchy is misrule by the few,” Classical? Who declares something “classical”? The term oligarchy was pioneered by
AristotlePlato, who meant it in the context of rule by the few, and by de facto, rule by the wealthy or aristocracy.“classical definition of aristocracy is proper rule by the few” Again, going off the original definition it actually means a meritocratic oligarchy. An oligarchy is actually what most people are talking about when they say aristocracy, and this includes you.
“aristocracy as tyranny : monarchy” Are you saying monarchy is bad? Monarchy simply means rule by one, which usually ends up being a kingdom, duchy, principality, empire, or emirate (though there are many other terms).
“The article’s point, beyond reiterating the obvious wisdom that people are not equal” It is irrelevant if people are equal. What is relevant is if people should be given equal rights and opportunities (as too if they can loose these rights is not relevant).
indolence is a sin for good reason. Yet a person who cannot work should not work.
“The best what to free people from constant ideological bickering is simply to minimize the scope and role of government in life. This, of course, is the intent of libertarianism.” That is redundant. How do you think Libertarianism would be implemented? Oh yeah, fighting for it in government. Your Libertarianism is now 100% useless as a solution to “too much ideological bickering”.
“Radical self-empowerment and decentralization is the wave of the future.” This goes against everything that has happened sense the dawn of industrialization.
“Small self-interested groups will have the capacity for self-governance in the future.” Yeah, but the problem with that isn’t that people can’t self rule, it’s that people don’t want other people self ruling. Your idea is tandem to encouraging depressed people to commit suicide.
“socialism, Christianity, etc. are rapidly becoming obsolete.” Okay. Well besides the fact that you just pulled that out of your ass, it’s not true. Christianity is still growing. As for Socialism, when societies grow in complexity, so does the government. If you think government growth is bad, then you think that economic, technological, and societal growth is bad.
Charity, voluntary giving, is not really what is meant by “wealth redistribution” (i.e., the socially-engineered, involuntary confiscation of wealth for distribution to others).
Fiat currency redistributes wealth because it robs the common people of their savings while allowing the State to generate money out of thin air for its own purposes, usually redistributive in nature under Social Democratic or Socialist states. In the short-term, this amounts to a redistribution of wealth and, in the long term, it amounts to a complete robbery of the vast majority of wealth.
yes its called corporate fascism. basically take the worst from capitalism and socialism and call it your political economic system. terrible except for the top 0.1%.
The United States does not have a mixed economy. Can you even name any government run enterprises by the US government?
What are you even talking about? Explain what you mean by corporate fascism? Do you mean Corporatism? Do you a system where corporations rule the government? Please explain what you mean…
That is contra-natura, so don’t hold your breath for the implementation of such an Utopian system.
Sure can: most all of them.
2 specific ones would be health insurance (post-0bamacare) and the post office.
However, with its heavy-handed restrictions and regulatory agencies, the US federal government runs nearly every industry…and it has been running them into the ground 🙁
Andrew, I agree with the premise of this posting. Free men are not equal and I am definitely a free man. As such, I can say that you are definitely not my equal.
With regards to aristocracy, I will support whichever one that makes me a part of it. If it doesn’t, I’ll make my own aristocracy.
As I consider myself fully equal to any other human, I would never “kow tow” to any other human or any group of humans. I wouldn’t dream of it.
Thank you for opinion and showing your irrationality beneath the thin veneer of “objectivity”.
I don’t care what you think. You and those of your ilk have zero possibility of influence over me. What you feel about my world-view is irrelevant to me and my future life.
Since the point of this article is about free men not being equal, as a free man, you guys are not even close to be my equals (LOL!).
The non-libertarian world-view is essentially the mentality of a slave. I am not a slave.
I just stated my opinion. You are too solipsistic and emotional if you thought I made my argument for “your sake” or looking forward to some conversion or some other crap. I just recognized that at least 50% of your statement is the crap I just rejected from the previous generations that have wrecked our world.
It doesn’t matter what you believe or reject. Its totally irrelevant to me. Your world-view and actions has no possibility of having any influence over my life and how I choose to live it.
I think this alt-right jazz is as silly as the liberal-left. Indeed, the alt-right and liberal-left are mirror images of each other.
You haven’t actually read your Aristotle. He defined oligarchy as a corrupted aristocracy, just like a tyranny is a corrupted monarchy. That’s what he meant by “classical.”
“I don’t care what you think.” WOW, what a well constructed argument… It has a perfect use of the red herring fallacy! No in all seriousness, all this shows is that you aren’t capable of countering my arguments…
” I think much of this alt-right/manosphere stuff is as stupid and asinine as the liberal-left you guys so oppose.” At what point did I say I am Alt Right? Also, the manosphere isn’t a philosophy or ideology, is a collective thought of male, anti feminist philosophers. This ends up include A LOT of stuff, with more differences than things in common.
“My life and my life goals are the standard of my morality. I seek self-empowerment and have no use, whatsoever, for any world-view (philosophy, religion, ideology)” Even if you don’t follow someone else’s philosophy, you follow your own. As for religion, well religion isn’t a world view you dipstick, it’s a belief.
Intelligence doesn’t mean being right. Intelligence is measure of cognitive ability (e.g. how fast you learn).
True. You need executive function as well.
In any case, I think there is no real solution to the problem of governance. All systems (democracy, autocracy, etc.) are flawed. I think the best we can do is the PARTIAL solution of federalization and radical decentralization. The problems of centralized power can only be reduced by getting rid of centralized power. As Rothbard put it, if men are by nature good, then any system ought to work. If they are by nature bad, there is no sense in putting one person or group of persons in charge of all others.
After all, Lee Kuan Yew’s are hard to come by given that he is the ONLY example of a successful semi-autocrat anywhere in the world in the past 100 years.
“I don’t care what you think.” If you don’t want to have rational argumentative discussion, don’t come to the comment section on this website. This website is for people to openly discuss their views free of SJW wrath and tension. If you want to smear your views without getting any counter response and foreign input, go somewhere else.
Kurt claims to have a 130 IQ, yet he can’t work out how to debate…
My main beef with capital is that the value of capital is given undue weight in our society. For example, why does society attribute someone like Peter Theil (no beef against him, and I thank him for going after Gawker) billions more influence as some unknown genius ie Tesla?
The valuing of Capital is oddly handled in our society. While it’s a good thing to encourage savings and accumulation of resources, (the basis for rewarding those with capital), society today gives almost zero payoff to those who save, invest, and defer gratification.
Interest rates are for all practical purposes nonexistent, and inflation destroys the value of the dollar; meanwhile low equity low interest lending allows profligate spenders to obtain whatever they want on credit, without much of a premium or cost to the credit versus the saver who pays in cash. On the other hand, if one is a BIG saver / hoarder of capital, (ie millionaire or greater) then the rewards are infinite.
Aristotle didn’t coin oligarchy, it goes back at least to plato (100 years before Aristotle) and he defined it as a system where a small group of the rich (basically aristocrats) rule. He didn’t say this was the optimal system, but he didn’t think it was necessarily worse than democracy.
What exactly is the difference between a belief and a world-view? I use the term world-view as a blanket to describe any philosophy, religion, and ideology.
I didn’t say he coined it. But he did make a distinction between aristocracy and oligarchy that was fundamental to the subsequent history of political science. You’re choosing to conflate the two terms and by doing so are arguing at cross-purposes with everyone here.
You have an inherent believe in something being real (such as a god). A world view is just another word for philosophy.
:I didn’t say he coined it.” Well then why did you say I didn’t read my Aristotle? Is Aristotle some sort of supreme philosopher of which everyone must follow his definitions? No, I almost always use the original definition…
Federalization is ineffective. It assumes different regions have different goals, which isn’t the case. What does it matter if that region is 100 or 10000 sq km?
The term oligarchy was pioneered by Aristotle, who meant it in the context of rule by the few, and by de facto, rule by the wealthy or aristocracy.
Well there you have it. You’re talking about rule by the “movers and shakers” (captains of industry types) of any given society, which is essentially a meritocracy. It is meritocracy as long as it does not degenerate into crony capitalism, which is often the case.
The reason why I think you alt-right types are as nutty as the left is that you subscribe to the same paradigm as they do. If only the “right” people are put in charge, everything will be OK. The left has its PC liberalism as its magic pixie dust to unify society whereas your pixie dust is Christianity.
I do not believe there is any solution to governance. I certainly do not subscribe to the notion that there is the one perfect world-view or belief that is optimized for all humans (this delusion is common to both the religious and the left). Instead, I believe the only PARTIAL solution is federalization and radical decentralization. Rothbard made the point that if humans are by nature good, then any system should work. However, if humans are by nature screwed up (and you and I both know this to be true), then there is no point to putting one human or group of humans in charge of all others.
This is the reason why I consider the alt-right to be wrong-headed.
Religion, philosophy, ideology; these are all forms of world-views. There is no conceptual differences between these things. My friends and I call all of these things memes. I guess I will use the word meme to describe these things from now on.
I was trying to clear up a misunderstanding but clearly your purpose is self congratulation not communication. If you use the oldest definition rather than the most common one, get used to being confused a lot.
Read again. Aurelius said oligarchy is normally defined as corrupted aristocracy, which is how it has been used in discourse for many centuries. This comes from Aristotle whom you mentioned first.
But honestly, I’m really not all that interested anymore.
Of course we have different goals. We have different cultures too. Are you seriously suggesting that the “South” is culturally identical to, say, Silicon Valley or the Pacific Northwest?
“specific ones would be health insurance (post-0bamacare)” That is not a mixed economy. A mixed economy means state ownership of certain industrial corporations that work within the framework of a larger economy of mostly private corporations. The affordable care act is simply a set of regulations created by congress on the insurance industry, it in now way has any state ownership and it has nothing to do with a mixed economy.
An example of a mixed economy would be a country where rail tracks are state owned, but any private persons can use the rails (for a fee or some other funding mechanism).
“However, with its heavy-handed restrictions and regulatory agencies” The US government is not heavy handed. Go compare it’s regulations to other countries. If you want something less strict, go start a company in outer space…
Owned markets is a better solution.
No, what I mean is that regions aren’t distinct barriers. Texas has conservatives, but it also has a fairly large minority of liberals. California has liberals, but it has a fairly large minority of liberals. It’s why first past the post voting is bad.
“Are you seriously suggesting that the “South” is culturally identical to, say, Silicon Valley?” First off, you are comparing a region you could probably view in it’s entirety with your naked eye, to a region that is bigger than most countries. But if you actually took someone with little understanding of western society, and you showed them Houston, and then you Showed them Los Angeles, they wouldn’t be able to recognize which is which. The Art. the Dialect(s). The Cuisine. The Dress. The Architecture. The city planning. It’s all pretty much the same. Almost all Americans accept the legalization of homosexuality. They almost all agree in at least moderate gun rights. America really isn’t that different region to region wise, and cultural minorities are spread fairly evenly, it’s just a consequence of faster transportation and communication.
Owned markets?
True. But there are enough regional differences to have an effect on federal level politics. Most people in Massachusetts are not nearly as supportive of the 2nd amendment as say most people in Texas. Most people in North Carolina probably do not want men (in DRAG, of course) using the ladies room. A lot of people in Portland (where I live) are actually OK with this. If Roe vs Wade were overturned, most states in the South would ban abortion. All of the Western states (and the East Coast) would not only keep it legal, but would subsidize it for the poor. Its a lot easier to get rid of bad laws on the state level than it is on the federal level.
My point is that there are significant regional differences in politics and, as such, it would be much better if politics were to be localized. in any case, individuals have much more power to change local politics than federal level politics.
Localization is the only partial solutions to the problem of governance. There are no other solutions.
I really do believe than in issues of governance and world-views, its much better if we can all go our separate ways. We can never agree on anything and political “solutions” are, if anything, inherently zero-sum.
“The term oligarchy was pioneered by Aristotle, who meant it in the context of rule by the few, and by de facto, rule by the wealthy or aristocracy.
Well there you have it.”
Sorry, I got Plato and Aristotle mixed up… Plato created it as part of his 5 regimes.
As for for Aristotle use of Aristocracy, it means an oligarchy of the best. So it’s sort of ambiguous and doesn’t actually exist. I said meritocracy meaning that they are the best qualified, or smartest or whatever.
“The reason why I think you alt-right types” I’m not alt right. I don’t agree to the idea of a political spectrum.
“If only the “right” people are put in charge, everything will be OK.” No we don’t think that. We are trying to find an optimal system that works the best, but no one says the world will work perfectly.
” certainly do not subscribe to the notion that there is the one perfect world-view” No shit. Nobody thinks that.
“This is the reason why I consider the alt-right to be wrong-headed.” You clearly don’t understand what I think or what the alt right is.
http://freenortherner.com/2016/04/10/owned-markets/
We are trying to find an optimal system that works the best, but no one says the world will work perfectly.
But that’s my point. I don’t believe this is possible. I believe a better approach is to allow people of different world-views and goals to form their own systems and to essentially allow everyone to go their own way as much as possible, given the limits of geography and the like.
For example, I don’t think you guys can come up with a system I would want to live under and I’m certain that any system (or non-system) I would come up with would not be acceptable to you.
The best approach for the alt-right to take is to work to reduce federal government regulation and power as much as possible and to devolve power to the states and locals (ultimately to individuals) as much as possible. I think Trump (who I think will win by a land-slide bigger than anything since FDR in 1932) will be very receptive to this.
I believe the key is decentralized network of communities based on resilience and competence, that have different values, but freely network and interact with each other based on mutual respect and rational self-interest. This is really the best we can do. This is what I call “libertarianism”.
“The best approach for the alt-right to take is to work to reduce federal government regulation and power as much as possible and to devolve power to the states and locals (ultimately to individuals) as much as possible. I think Trump (who I think will win by a land-slide bigger than anything since FDR in 1932) will be very receptive to this.” Oh. So basically you want the European Union. Fair enough…
Interesting… But at the same time, it is ridiculous. Basically he just goes full circle: I don’t like government, let’s minimize the government though privatization, now all the government has is the market, so now lets privatize that, oh wait, now we just have a new government! Basically all he said was that we should take off all government accountability and the government should work to maximize it’s profits. Well here is the problem with that. DO YOU WANT TO PAY 70% INCOME TAX? BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE THE LAFFER CURVE PEAKS.
Another thing he says that I disagree with is the tragedy of the commons. This simply isn’t a real problem. Swiss farmers have had commons they have run for over 500 years. Our public road systems, would you say they are “abused”? No off course not.
Another thing he claims is that government infinitely grows toward Stalinist Socialism. Bullshit. The only countries that have done this have had 3 things in common: 1) All these countries were Stalinist/Marxist 2) All of them had unchecked governments without accountability. 3) All of them were created though “revolution”. Government grows in complexity as Society and the economy grows in complexity, and there isn’t a point in trying to limit government for limiting governments sake.
“Charity, voluntary giving” What makes voluntary so much more magical than compulsory?
“Fiat currency redistributes wealth because it robs the common people of their savings” You aren’t talking about fiat currency then. You are talking about inflationary currency. Fiat currencies can be inflation or deflationary or stable, and backed currencies can be deflationary or inflationary or stable. It’s about management and government accountability, not fiat or backing.
“while allowing the State to generate money out of thin air for its own purposes, usually redistributive in nature under Social Democratic or Socialist states.” This is not the system used in the United States or any other developed nation for that matter. Most countries use Fractional Reserve Banking, which I find to be a bad system, but it is not anything like creating money for social programs. In fact, most Social programs actually give money back to the US governments main budget.
The ruling elite essentially own the corporations. The corporations write the laws and thus own the masses.
Immigration, penal and law enforcement, power utilities are some. Then you have “chosen” companies that are bailed out by big government such as GM– the taxpayers lost over $10 Billion when the feds finally sold the last of their Shares to save that worthless company, but they do give big donations to the democrat party. The US is a mixied economy– crony capitalism and socialism for quite some time.
State dictates the product and the price without owning is one of the forms of socialism, but you are trying to dismiss that on grounds of who “owns” it. Cute.
“In fact, most Social programs actually give money back to the US governments main Budget.”
Feel free back to back that lie up.
Those resources are provided by those who can produce under a capitalist system which delivers to the public at the cheapest market price. If you use compulsion and state control you get the khmer rouge.
Indeed. They can also be provided through a feudal system, which has no resemblance to the above as it is not a market economy.
> That is contra-natura
Prove it.
The soviet Union proved it for me almost 30 years ago. You cannot coerce the people to give up what they deem is theirs for the sake of some abstract ideology. It’s not sustainable in the long term. The first colonists tested socialism and it failed miserably (in those times it was called “at work: to each to his capabilities and at the payday To each according to his needs”, note that it wasn’t according to his merits or achievements). Even dogs recognize when they are given a raw deal…
No. Not like the EU. The EU is a huge unaccountable bureaucracy. The EU regulatory mandarins are not even elected, nor is the EU council. They have this constitution with nearly a 1,000 pages of content that specifies everything including how far from the floor electrical sockets should be located (yes, seriously – I’ve dealt with this crap in exporting machinery to Europe). What I am suggesting is simply getting rid of lots of federal regulation and of federal agencies such as the FDA and the Department of Education.
“The EU regulatory mandarins are not even elected” Mandarins?
“nor is the EU council” Yes it is. It’s a meeting of the leaders of each county. And the EU parliament is directly elected.
“that specifies everything including how far from the floor electrical sockets should be located” I’m pretty sure most cities/counties/states in the US also have regulations like this anyways…
My idea is not to have the “right people” in charge, though I certainly like it when the aristocracy culls the unworthy from its ranks and promotes the good into it.
Nor do I think everything will be OK. Nothing in history gives us any reason to believe this, of any system of governance.
What I care about is the dominant ideal of the society, which is far more important than the people or the system. If the society is oriented towards virtue, the transcendent, moral and technical excellence, it is more likely to do well. If the society is oriented more towards the mundane, equality, resentment of others’ gifts, accomplishments or even undeserved privileges, of course all it will produce is a disgraceful bunch of degenerate bitches.
Non serviam!
Service and slavery are different things.
Also, submission to reality different from being a slave to theories that pretend to free you from it.
In a sense, all businesses have a large portion of their decisions run, or the parameters for those decisions narrowly set, by the US government. Hiring and firing, wages, the kinds of work permitted, the kinds of materials and workplaces allowed, the benefits provided, on and on and on, the US government is running your business for you in many respects, even if you get to pay the taxes on it and put your name at the top of the letterhead.
Social Security: In 2014, the Social Security Trust Fund had 2,789,500,000,000 (2.7 trillion) dollars in Reserve. Money in reserve is “invested” into treasury bonds, which is a fancy way of saying the Federal Debt. Over the course of the year, it added an additional 55,000,000,000 (55 billion) dollars to it’s reserves. Citation: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2015/tr2015.pdf
Medicare: In 2014, Medicare had 266,400,000 (266.4 billion) dollars in treasury bonds to the Federal Government.
Both of these, being the two biggest Social Social programs in the United States, end up paying back into the treasury 16.5% of the total federal debt. These programs are actually self liquidating.
Thank you for illustrating how Libertarians are just Liberals that have not yet gone “full retard.”
“I consider myself to be fully competitive to most other humans.” Yes, you and every other Shaniqua in the Barak Hussein Obama School of Biblical Cosmetology all feel this way. That’s exactly the point. Thought and reality are different things. “There is no other human that is superior to myself.” Oh, but there are many! It is quite freeing to realize that we have our superiors on this earth. And in any case, the exercise of authority need not imply the ontologically superior quality of the prelate over the subject. Many men have been ruled and commanded by their betters, but authority, submission, discipline, duty, etc., have their good uses despite this.
The principle that government should not discriminate and interfere, has become the basis for the most outrageous government discrimination and interference. For this means that the government must not uphold laws that are based in any concrete idea at all, for that would discriminate against people who don’t have those ideas. And hence Justice Kennedy can tell us what the logical conclusion of “Libertarianism” is – i.e., Full-Blown Aids (er, I mean Liberalism): “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
Every ideology, including Liberalism and Libertarianism, and every law of any kind, is a slap in the face to that impossible idea. But the idea that the government must be minimized to the point where it does not interfere too much in people’s lives, only makes sense if there is agreement about what the government should be doing, and what “interference in people’s lives” means. In the absence of that agreement (and surely neither the government nor other “equal people” have a right to enforce any kind of agreement on you!) this concept requires the government to step in and negate all concrete concepts and laws, because these infringe upon people’s “rights” not only to do as they please, but to be entitled to their own, private reality, upon which their Government’s and their neighbours’ realities are unendurable assaults. It is a fool’s philosophy.
“State dictates the product and the price” The ACA isn’t about price controls or product controls. The highlights of the regulations include the following provisions: subsidization of health care plans for *SOME* poor people; put a penalty on those without health insurance; and the pre-existing conditions provision. The only thing that even comes close to product controls is that it forces NEW insurance policies to fully cover medical screening.
Too to honest, the ACA doesn’t actually do much, and I mean that in both ways, it’s not bad and it’s not good, it’s without consequence.
“is one of the forms of socialism” The definition of socialism is a system where industry(s) are owned by the state. What you are thinking of is (radical) Social Democracy, where the state plays a heavy roll controlling industry. I am not really advocating either of those, I am advocating that small number of strategic industries such as Petroleum, Health care (private health care would still be legal), and Rail Tracks are nationalized (socialism) while the rest of the economy is left as free range market capitalism.
“Immigration, penal and law enforcement” How would you even have these function as private industries? It wouldn’t be possible. Anyways, none of those are industries, they are Social Programs.
“power utilities” Where? A few cities and counties have public utilities, but most areas have private contracts. Anyways, I mean state run industries as in national industries on the scale of the entire US economy or on the scale of (american) states – I don’t give a shit about your county or city.
“companies that are bailed out” That is called cronyism. It isn’t part of a mixed economy.
“The US is a mixied economy– crony capitalism and socialism for quite some time.” Again, you have yet to give a single example of Socialism in the US. Ill name you every single national level socialist venture in the US: The Postal Service, The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, National Public Radio, The Tennessee Valley Authority and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That really isn’t that much, I don’t consider that nearly significant enough to be considered mixed.
Note: Fannie Mæ, Freddie Mac, Farmer Mac, Ginnie Mæ, and their related corporations are privately owned, Congressional chartered corporations, and are mercantilism, not socialism.
Okay. Well that isn’t what I was speaking of when I advocated a mixed economy at all.
“In a sense, all businesses have a large portion of their decisions run, or the parameters for those decisions narrowly set, by the US government.” I mean state owned industries. The US doesn’t really have many.
“Hiring and firing, wages, the kinds of work permitted, the kinds of materials and workplaces allowed, the benefits provided, on and on and on” Ummm… None of those things are very controlled by the Federal Government. Sure, there is a very low 7.25 minimum wage, but that is completely different than telling a business how much it can pay someone, and I am pretty sure most workers aren’t doing less than that anyways. Besides that, there are minimal restrictions on who you can fire (sex and race). That is not control for shit. When I say mixed economy, I mean a mix between private and government enterprise, regulations on business practices doesn’t make something socialist. I actually mean certain industries would be state owned, and the rest would be free range capitalism. Every person who has responded so far has used the red herring that the US already has a mixed economy. How would you know if my “mix” is the same mix as the US governments current mix?
I know you were talking about state-owned businesses.
What I’m saying, is that the government doesn’t need to own it directly, if it can dictate many or most of your decisions to you, collect large portions of taxes, oblige you to provide the benefits it wishes to your employees, etc., etc. At some point, “ownership” of the business becomes a thin pretense.
The government controls wages beyond simply fixing a minimum wage. It intrudes upon benefits, it now enforces equal pay between male and female employees, and, on that principle, could easily interfere in wages on the pretext of discrimination on any basis whatsoever. Ownership no longer means what it has always meant, if an “owner” is not really free to hire and fire whom he pleases as he pleases, to pay them what he pleases as he pleases, to create the work environment he pleases, to use his land and equipment as he pleases, etc., within the bounds of the norms of objective morality.
“What I’m saying, is that the government doesn’t need to own it directly” Yes it does. It is inherently important to my model that they directly own it. I promote these ventures to be publicly owned for the sake of making the government money, to fight cronyism, and to give everyone equal access to use these services. I don’t want a system with heavy government regulation, stop using it as a red herring because it IS NOT WHAT I WANT.
I want state ownership of railroad tracks, because it allows all railroad companies to equally use them and setup routes on them, and it allows the government to directly invest money into rail tracks to improve them. Basically, I want them to be just like the way roads work. Would you want to live in a world where every road was privately owned?
I want the government to have a state owned health care system, where hospitals, drug manufactures, medical centers, etc. because having value added margins increases costs without increasing quality.
I want military equipment to be made by the government because it takes away anyone’s interest in going to war.
I want utilities nationalized because utilities are always monopolies, and if there is a monopoly it should serve the public, not create private profits.
None of these are anywhere on the scale of regulation of private enterprise. I don’t want regulation of private enterprise, I want a mixture of state and private enterprise. You seem to have a false understanding of why I want state ownership, and you need to reread my comment until you understand that.
“Fiat currency redistributes wealth because it robs the common people of their savings…”
That’s what libertarians with the background in Austrian School of Economics sayand I disagree. Fiat currency i.e. sovereign creating money is not intrinsically evil. Also there is nothing intrinsically wrong with savings (in terms of money) losing their value. Nothing under the sun preserves its value, everything gets corrupted and destroyed sooner or later. Property is no exception.
Neither redistribution is evil. It might or might not be prudent under circumstances but it can be a sovereign’s legitimate tool to promote common good. No more I take seriously bold claim of economists, no matter what school they are.
I would have to look into the matter more, before I would agree that fiat currency is not inherently evil. It may be that you’re right about that.
Also, “stuff happens” when it comes to losing your savings, sure.
But, economic policies that rely on manipulating the value of the fiat currency, devaluing the wealth of citizens while allowing the government to create astronomical debt vastly out of proportion to the actual wealth of the nation, is certainly evil.
Democracy is death. Aristocracy done correctly is indeed meritocratic. One is welcomed into the aristocracy for great worthiness and/or service to the country; persons are stripped of title and expelled for disgracing themselves. Nobles who remain noble but squander their fortunes or have little to show for themselves, also have little power and influence. The idea of noblesse oblige is upheld.
Our modern notion of the horrors of the aristocracy have been given to us by the envious quislings who murdered them for explicitly Luciferian reasons, and then wrote the history books – not exactly an unbiased opinion! No system is perfect, but the “race to the bottom” that is Democracy, is worse than all others.
“Our modern notion of the horrors of the aristocracy have been given to us by the envious quislings”… Not so much, in my opinion. It was the corruption of said aristocrats by burgeois values (namely ostentation and corruption, or, euphemistically, “monetization of power”) that created the notion you mention. And it was not that far from truth both in 1789 or 1917/18.
I agree and am solidly anti-monarchical, with the caveat (which you probably know) that Bolshevism instituted a horrendous and profoundly unequal Jewish regime which scourged and massacred the white Slavic proletariat.
Well, I would not say I am “anti-monarchical”, I am more prone to say it can be a good system, if adequate to a specific nation or historical context.
Sometimes I watch “indiscriminate adepts” of monarchy trying to purposefully ignore the decadence of european aristocracies, in hope, perhaps, of victimizing kings and nobles who were clearly inept at their most sacred duty of keeping their Societies’ moral and hierarchy.
I am fully anti-Socialist. You named it very well: “jewish regime” (most soviets were jews). Their crimes will not be forgotten. But be not mistaken, jews bought their way into formerly wholesome powers of all colours. Remember the Rothschilds, who played the Austrian, British, French, Portuguese (and now American) Empires as toys, all the while they killed millions of Europeans for tax rates (Finnish will remember this). Oh, and the Goldman-Sachs. And the Péreires. And the Goldsmiths. And the Bischoffsheims. And the Mendelssohns (Oppenheimers)… And Soros, and Bloomberg, and Mikhail Fridman, and Abramovich…
Yes, but this was due to the disastrous policy of admitting bourgeois persons to the aristocracy in exchange for the sale of the public offices that automatically conferred nobility. The hereditary aristocracy detested this bourgeois class of aristocrats, but the king’s treasury wanted what it wanted.
I don’t view this as something that discredits that form of government. Every form of government makes mistakes, and eventually breaks down. In my opinion, a Catholic aristocracy (a monarch, his nobles, the princes of the Church) will work the best, for the longest. But I’m not selling a “golden government.” It doesn’t exist in this vale of tears.
I did not imply that you were anti-monarchical; perhaps I should have said I agree that the proles had legitimate grievances in 1789 and 1917 slash 18, and I happen to be anti-monarchical altogether. Few pairs of men will be one-hundred percent ideological soulmates.
But look at how fecklessly, if not subversively, even the highest-ranking and most pedigreed – for the most familiar example to Anglos – British nobles have wielded their social (if not their legal) power, aka the bully pulpit, to assist the Zio-Bolshevik globalists (there is no strict dichotomy; most Jews, like Emma Lazarus and Israel Zangwill, wish Zionism for Israel and Bolshevism for the goyim) in the infamous mass Arabization push of late, which I previously called demographical as well as literal terrorism.
And, as you probably know, the “Windsors,” whose surname is one-tenth as ancient as those of most of their white subjects, recently admitted Kate Middleton (Goldsmith) into their family, which dwarfs the offense of introducing trace Indian blood via the frankly stupid, goof-off, born-on-home-plate whore Diana, who is Exhibit A for proving AWALT.
In spite of all this, there are still many white UK nationalists, whose thoughts you can find on Stormfront and elsewhere, who cannot mentally separate nationalist sentiment from Uncle Tomming for their royals, even though said royals wield more great power and great responsibility to do the right thing than any silly alternative right blogger can imagine; yet, instead, they assist the majority of their socioeconomic peers in pushing Cultural Marxism and white mongrelization.
That is why I am repulsed by monarchist sentiment, in addition to the simple fact that royal court culture sets an awful example of anti-meritocracy, beta behavior (bowing and styles?), and snobbery and bullying based upon which wet hole a person was fortunate or unfortunate enough to come out of, all of which invariably trickles down onto the untitled provincial gentry and then onto the whole culture.
You’re looking for your Lee Kuan Yew. Where do you think you’ll find him?
Certainly not in any of the real-life pedigreed European elites, nearly all of whom support the infamous demographic terrorism program in those nations, which has been and will be followed by literal terrorism.
Perhaps alt-right monarchists should be reminded that in such a system, just over half of the aristocracy and gentry will be female, and you are as likely as not to be pigeonholed at birth into being the help for some born-on-home-plate woman, who, as we in the manosphere know, disdains her subordinates and social lessers in a way that most men can scarcely imagine.
I’m not looking for anyone. I know very little of Lee Kuan Yew. My destiny is not to be this man; that is not the path given to me. I do what I’m supposed to do (or, I try to). The aristocracy of tomorrow will have to find itself; but if I can help it to find itself, I’ll be glad enough.
Yes; the older aristocracies were better about ensuring that the only influence such noblewomen had, was the indirect influence through her husband. Not a perfect job (I already can hear folk rushing to their keyboards to cite all the Brunhildas and Fredegundas they can find), but a better job.
Point taken, and I appreciate your prolific audience interaction. I still disagree that a white man should be worth less for entering the world via the wrong wet hole, which I reckon would put most alt-righters in quiet, servile deference to the aristocrats, gentry, and mercantile bourgeoise, who generally – notwithstanding the politically astute, nouveau-riche Trump – favor globalism, open borders, and white mongrelization because these things so profoundly debase the common Western worker.
But reaching an uneasy consensus, as women are wont to do, is not the typical purpose of a conversation or debate. MAGA and good day.
But I’m arguing exactly the opposite. In a society ordered along the lines of virtue, 1) our current “elite” will no longer be elite; alt-righters, who tend to be from working, virtuous families, would easily rise to the top or the upper-middle; 2) even poor people can be virtuous, and thus attain actual dignity within the community, whereas now the only way to have status is by applauding degeneracy or being a degenerate; 3) being born out of the “wrong, wet hole” doesn’t disadvantage you any more than it already does, in either system.
In fact, our current system where people are “equal” doesn’t really result in equality, does it? Two kinds of people go to Harvard, now: 1) people born from the “right wet hole,” and 2) people born from the “wrong wet hole,” who will be specially targeted via Affirmative Action, etc. Who has little chance of going to Harvard? Intelligent white folk (especially men) whose parents work, but are not overly wealthy. And really, even poor white folk won’t go, unless they can claim Transfag status or something of the like. So, as it is, everything is already determined by identity politics; as a white man, in fact, things would only get better for you in an healthy, virtue-based aristocracy.
Another side-effect of our current system is that the emphasis on identity politics, status and pseudo-intellectualism has completely destroyed all of the virtues (including clear-thinking) that initially bestowed elite status on our “elite” institutions. Nowadays even Harvard Graduates are often just as stupid and badly educated as anyone else. So this false idea of “equality” 1) does not actually make you equal; the “wrong wet hole” problem still exists; and 2) it lowers standards precipitously in order to maintain the illusion of “equality” when stupid and lazy people are admitted to elite status. I would put my grandfather, who left school at 15 yet had an extensive vocabulary, beautiful penmanship, excellent mathematical skills and an enormous amount of practical knowledge for running his own farm, including the ability to work on his own machines and tractors, against any PhD from Harvard in terms of raw intelligence and competence. I would even trust his opinions on complex issues of national policy over some sheltered egg-head with a mediocre, Ivy-League, Marxist indoctrination and a bucketful of Progressive arrogance.
European estate system was not Indian caste system. There was a reasonable movement between social stratas.
Yeah, well I’m not interested in any proposed system that would have LESS mobility than what we have in today’s America. I simply do not see the argument for less rather than more mobility.
Jerry Pournelle has a preface on his site that free men are not equal and that equal men are not free. The implication there of is there is a trade off between equality and freedom. The increase in one necessarily involves a reduction in the other.
What irritates me about this posting (and by association, the alt-right in general) is the notion that both equality AND freedom should be reduced. You guys are not talking about accepting inequality in exchange for freedom. You seem to want to reduce both, and I have absolutely no interest in such a proposition (even if I get to be the guy at the top).
Aurelius, are you going off the grid permanently?
Maybe someday! Immediately the cause for my absence will be more prosaic: I’m entering a school, and won’t be free to write regularly. I may throw an article this way every now and then, especially when my course of studies there is done, to give the fellas an update on everything.
After that, plans are still in the works to build the monastery, which certainly will be off the grid. I’ll head into town every so often for internet business, so we’ll at least keep the blog updated that way.
I was just in the process of asking you about these things at your site (Ascension Hermitage).
Best regards.
Please do (continue to contribute). I was quite disappointed to see you will be leaving us soon. Your articles may not trigger as many comments as “Top 5 Ways Feminists Disgusted us in 2015” but I feel they are among the most important, and the comments show your writing is quite popular here.
If humans acted virtuously and charitably, no one would be worried about the economy as all men’s needs would be met. Sadly, the Golden Calf of capitalist excess and the Jezebel of personal amorality prevent that.
We’re constantly encouraged to earn as much money as possible and ignore the needs of others. Likewise, we’re also encouraged by the egalitarian leftist religious establishment to ignore all forms of natural law. These two things create a populace that is constantly on the prowl for new sinful experiences.
Its the free market. It reflects the appetites of people. ”Capitalist excess” is a symptom but not the cause
Capitalist excess created the free market in order to better satiate its appetites.
Purely material. But never spiritual. That’s the problem with your philosophy.
You haven’t read my other comments have you? Giving is a spiritual act meant to make sure no righteous need is left unwanted.
People react to incentives sunshine. People don’t give unless they are motivated by something internal.
Piety is an incentive.
Then the problem is spiritual poverty. Its not money that is the root of many kinds of evil but love of money.
A free market system is great at generating wealth and distributing resources. But it is the people that buy into it that drive its direction.
Although it should be owned in my opinion by a sovereign:
http://freenortherner.com/2016/04/10/owned-markets/
I agree. However, those sovereigns should be pious men who care about giving rather than receiving (unlike, you know, European nobles). Priests, bishops, even just learned religious folk make great choices.
What “free market”?
The USA hasn’t had anything approaching that phrase in over a century, and if the “capitalist” USA doesn’t have it, where might it be found?
Free market capitalism is the right to do whatever one pleases in the confines of others’ rights. In practice, it is the right to do whatever sinful impulse the flesh commands you to.
Free market capitalism, with the exception of perhaps the Cayman Islands, has never truly existed, and never will, as corporations and the state always collude to better their interests.
Ironically the Old Testament, which is so roundly derided by anti-Christian types today, explicitly commanded people to forgive all debts every seven years. There was even a name for it, though it escapes me at the moment.
Of course over time people completely ignored that command as they do so many others, with the end result being today’s runaway inflation and a society that actively encourages massive debt.
Usury was also always forbidden by the Church. The overthrow of the Church’s power introduced the global financial elite we now know and love.
This is the best article I’ve read so far on Return of Kings. Keep it up , men.
I second this. It really is incredible.
First, a slow clap for this article which will occupy my mind for a few days if not longer.
[…]“But it is not yet crystal clear.“[…] True that, but your contribution makes it
clearer.
[…]“These are not in the competence of most people.“[…] What the strive for equality does is to declare the stupid ideas equal to the smart ideas, the amoral behavior equal to moral behavior, etc. Thus the most ruthless and scheming became the most powerful.
However, even after everything has crashed and burned, you cannot be certain that a virtuous society will evolve. History has shown, that after the dawn of a virtuous aristocracy, the heirs started the plunder as soon as the bodies of their fathers were cold. If the aristocratic system could solve its succession problem, it may endure for more than just a generation or two.
We have many centuries of monarchies (I view many monarchies as being a form of aristocracy, since the sovereign’s power is delegated and exercised by many nobles and potentates, to say nothing of the role of the Church in many such monarchies), which existed in far more stable fashion than the volatility of modern Democracies; many modern States have not existed, or have not existed in their present form, for more than two generations and are already spiraling out of control. Even the USA had a massive civil war within its first century and, shortly after, began to degrade its own tradition.
I generally had in mind any kind of government which focuses on virtue and excellence, with an elite that strives to produce this, is cultivated from people who do produce this, and patronizes and elevates people who produce this.
You said “Nature’s God”. God is not owned by nature, nor a product of it, but the other way around. Have I read it wrong?
Yep. He means it the way you do. Think “Aaron’s father.”
God, by Whom nature and its properties are created.
It sounds like you alt-right guys are looking for your Lee Kuan Yew.
Sounds like an interesting guy. I wouldn’t mind reading an article on him.
You should. I’ve been to Singapore and have read about its history and Lee Kuan Yew ,in particular. Lee Kuan Yew is probably the best statesmen and leader that has existed in the past 100 years, and the success of his city-state reflects it.
The entire alt-right/neo-reaction/MRA scene is really about creating some vague version of Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore here in the West, despite their claims to the contrary.
Claims to the contrary? If he’s such a great guy, why not emulate him? What is the major criticism of him? I would best most people in the west simply don’t know who he is or anything about him. Especially if he’s as good as you say, the media is going to totally ignore him.
I meant claims to the contrary from the alt-right scene. Instead of talking about creating an advanced city-state like Singapore, a lot of you guys sound like your talking about midevil European fairy tails.
There is a good book, an autobiography called “from third to first world” and gives you insights and tells the story of the process and the transformation that Singapore endured.
Are you getting your Thd? Or is there even a place where a sedevacantist can get one?
And please tell me you aren’t going away forever. You’re pretty much the only reason I read return of kings. Without your articles I’m stuck with the worthless assholes at the orthosphere (they really are, Bertonneau and that Protestant with Down’s syndrome especially, with a few exceptions. Kristor needs his own site. His articles are the only ones I bother with anymore) as pretty much the only place I comment regularly.
Jim, your comment made me laugh, and then immediately made me feel guilty! 😉
I’ll try to pop my head in every now and then; and when studies are done, I’ll be writing much more often. The seminary probably will grant some kind of diploma; whether it is recognized or not is anyone’s guess. But, I’m fine with that. If degrees still meant something, I might be pleased to get one. As they don’t mean anything, anymore, I like the idea of having nothing to show for it but my priesthood and my own abilities. Men will have to judge me for what I am, not as the “educated” man I appear to be, based on the fancy paper hanging proudly from my wall, signifying nothing.
Well, regardless, good luck! I’ll check back in a few months.
Ah, I’m not going anywhere right away. I’ll be departing several months from now.
Oh. From everyone’s tone it seemed liked you were about to walk off into the sunset. Make that a few weeks.
I think the concept of egalitarianism is being misused here. Leftists believe we are all equal. But I think everyone else realizes that we are certainly not all equal in ability and, hence, outcomes.
In terms of legality, egalitarianism is defined as being equal under the law. One law for all people. All people are assumed to be equally accountable to the law for their actions. If you are going to challenge this notion, what you are really challenging is the notion that all people are capable of assuming responsibility for their actions, even if they are not considered to be insane (legal definition) or otherwise mentally incapable of their own actions.
Personally I consider this a very dangerous path to follow. If you assume that some people are not capable of being responsible for their actions and, consequently, should have their rights and freedom of action reduced, what mechanism do you propose to determine this status? Is there even an objective mechanism for this? If not, then any such determination can be hijacked by political ideologues and used against their opponents. How do you propose to guard against this.
I believe the expression is “who will watch the watchmen”?
equality under the law is definitely not the only definition for egalitarianism
Nobody should advocate for a reduction of “rights.” Either a right is genuine and must be honored, or a right is spurious, in which case it doesn’t exist and should be held in contempt. The entire concept of “rights” abstracted from the norms of objective morality is incoherent and must be rejected. People should receive their genuine rights. Perfection does not exist in this life, but people’s genuine rights can indeed be determined with a much greater precision and accuracy than is found in the current, incoherent system!
Everything can be hijacked by political ideologues. That was a central point of the article. You cannot design a “system” that will produce perfection or utopia. The *best* you can do, is to set the standard of virtue high, and strive to uphold it. Without virtue and an elite based on it, all the “human rights” in the world will not protect you from the vitiated mob. And yes, one should pass sensible laws, but not in the mistaken notion that this will finally “guarantee” people’s rights. There are no “guarantees” in life. Let go of the pipe-dream.
We have a system that was designed to guarantee our rights. Is it working? Hell, no. Our government intrudes on your daily life in ways that a Medieval peasant could not have conceived of, and limits your legitimate rights and action in the extreme. Who will watch the watchers? Well, who is watching them in this great ‘Republic’ of ours? Nobody! Never have the watchers been less watched. Indeed, the people don’t even know who the real Watchers are!
This is what all Liberalism is based on. “But, somebody might deny me my rights! I must hamstring the authority and proffer the principle of abstract ‘rights,’ since no ‘authority’ has the right to determine what my rights are, and therefore any decision of authority against my conception of what my ‘rights’ are will be unpersuasive and eventually nullified with the right pressure.” Reason does teach us what actual rights are. Might people abuse a system that upholds them, and rejects spurious rights? Of course! Might people abuse our system? Look around!
“..over-reaching their station in life, desire to enjoy the feeling of impersonating an elite, without having the capacity to be one.”
With disastrous results for all I might add. Exhibit A: Obama
I think it was Aristotle who coined the word “Chrematistics”; word that applies really well to our modern economy, and the morbid ideals it promotes.
Great article.
I really don’t think the modern man deserves a traditional society yet.
The modern western man is so dumbed down, sinful, corrupt and pretentious that I tend to think he needs to suffer more, to go at the end of the pit of absurdity he has willingly thrown himself into, until the Providence makes a King rise among the ashes.
I agree entirely. I hope to encourage men to suffer with a purpose, and prepare for any resurrection that may come.
Thank again Brother for a thoughtful and stimulating article. Godspeed on your seminary studies; I would be honored to receive communion at your services someday.
Thanks; that’s too kind. God willing, perhaps your generous sentiment can be realized. Pray for me!
A major tragedy associated with this idea is the incessant attempts by our current culture to define anything even remotely authoritarian as inherently evil. Truly, every time any sort of autocratic character is presented in media, or referred to in history or politics, it is most often presented as inherently bad simply because of its authoritarian nature. As if to say “No matter how good a king might have been to his people, the fact that he was an authoritarian makes him ignoble”.
Ironically, this is an error that is especially pervasive among people that consider themselves “right-wing”. There is a tremendous fetishization of terms like “Freedom” and “Liberty” in their most broad senses. Instead of an honest reflection on the inherent value these terms hold, and how exactly they are expressed in culture, the “right-wing” continues to give ammunition to the Left’s narrative by holding fast to these empty slogans. Much of the transformation of the Republican party into an enclave of cuckoldry is a result of this. This is precisely why the Right has lurched to the Left, and the Left has lurched unchecked into what is now full on Marxism. Seriously, if a culture subscribes to these terms in the broad sense that ours does, essentially as all encompassing slogans for which absolutely no dissent is allowed (something that is widely agreed upon by the Left AND the Right), then why SHOULDN’T gay people get married and be able to engage in open degeneracy? Why SHOULDN’T women be placed in combat roles? Why SHOULDN’T immigrants be able to flood into our nations? This is how they have been able to successfully push the Overton Window so far Left, with very little resistance, and even acquiescence from the establishment Right. The Right’s arguments crumble because the population, and even the pundits themselves have “Liberty” and “Freedom” as their reference point. The continued incessant worship of these nebulous terms, not only by “right-wing” people, but even by people who consider themselves red-pilled, is highly destructive.
The future success of the right will be dependent on our ability to distance ourselves from Enlightenment Era type principals. It is only when we begin to emphasize classic virtue and authority that we will have built ourselves a harbor from which we can set sail.
Tremendous article, Aurelius. You are doing God’s work.
There is one political authority figure that is respected in today’s society. That is Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew. The problem is that guys like Lee Kuan Yew do not come around often in history and that authoritarians are mostly parasitical leaches. Lee Kuan Yew is about the only authoritarian figure who was not a parasitical leach in probably the past 200 plus years.
Thanks for the kind words. I also agree with your thoughts, here.
Ever read “The Authoritarian Personality?” Essentially, it states that well-adjusted people who love their parents and do not suffer from strange fetishes or simmering resentment, are problem personalities. Healthy=Authoritarian=Evil for these people.
You are spot-on in pointing out that “Conservatism,” because it embraces Liberal principles, is itself Liberal and has no compelling argument against anything the Left suggests in the name of Liberty, other than “But I’m not ready to have my school-age child engage in erotic play with Tranny Canines of Color yet!”
That which is noble can tolerate, but only to a point; the person who advocates for over-broad tolerance is by definition ignoble. Of course such people cannot recognize nobility in a king, or anywhere else.
Always a pleasure to read your reflections brother Moner.
Many thanks.
I like how you mentioned that high culture has been destroyed with the rise of the masses to supposed (but not really) elite status.
You see this in the prevalence of pop and rap music – while they can have some value in them it is definitely not high culture, something magnificent and awe-inspiring comparable to some of the Classical greats.
Yes, and not just high culture, but almost all, authentic culture. Many make the mistake of thinking that art “reflects” society or makes it question itself (a very revolutionary attitude). Actual art employs craft and skill to draw man’s attention to the sublime, the good and the beautiful. Most modern art does neither – it does not challenge society in any meaningful way, and it does not point man to the transcendent. It simply sells sugar to diabetics.
Thank you, thank you, thank you one hundred times.
My fingers are going numb trying to upvote your comments here; this one almost had me punching my computer screen to shout my support.
Haha, in cases like this I’ll actually go through the process of clicking the upvote button multiple times so that it votes, takes away the vote, then votes again, etc. Such pleasures are satisfying to me since I get to vigorously affirm that which I believe to be the best and truest sentiments here.
This made me laugh; I’m glad anything I say could cause someone to have such a good time. 😉
Exactly. Good points.
“…, Bis alles gleich, ei ja, weil alles niedrig.”… heheheh…))
The Christian Religion has now failed in all countries where it was an established church. It prospers most in that country which never had an established church – the United States. The Second Great Awakening swept away the remnants of establishment, both where it had actually existed, such as in New England, or where it had been a creature of the propertied classes – such as Episcopalian. The Second Great Awaking, like Jacksonian Democracy, was a revolt against Aristocracy, and Class privilege. We know this because the Jackson supporters were loud and clear on who they were and what they wanted.
Moreover, it was the aristocracy’s support of the philosophes. that destroyed belief in the Roman Catholic establishment. When the bourgeoisie pushed against the structure, it was already rotten within.
Marx was wrong when he said the bourgeoisie had been the most revolutionary class. They are the ONLY revolutionary class. In the US, we have recreated the “noblesse of the robe”, with all its attendant evils. We need to tear down this class of parasites.
So, I say – Ca Ira!
Yes, but those were all “bourgeois aristocracies,” if I can speak that way. Western Civilization for the past five centuries, has been the history of successively more vulgar waves of people edging out the folks just above them… while a globalist financial elite grew in the background. I’m all for slitting the throats of this “elite,” because they are not an elite of virtue, but an elite of guile and vice.
My argument in this article was not that merely having a group of people running things at the top is sufficient for good governance. That would be mere oligarchy. No system, per se, guarantees success. My point was that a society which is ordered towards virtue first and foremost, before “Liberty” and all the other egalitarian shleck,” provides a way for all people actually to attain to the things that an healthy society values. Historically, that involves an actual elite capable of cultivating the institutions, customs, laws, art, music and architecture that dignify society and draw even the poorest souls to admire what is good and beautiful in the world and in the soul.
Not every man can master the high culture; pretending that every man should be competent at self-governance, or having a say in the affairs of state, or should even be free to express his opinions, advocate for them and rabble-rouse on that basis, is deleterious of society. The end result of indulging this impulse, is the “race to the bottom” of Democracy, abstract rights wielded as a weapon against the commonwealth, etc.
“… the society with egalitarian pretenses dooms the masses to the tragedy
of pretending at qualities and achievements they can never truly attain.”
So true.
“Indeed, the society with egalitarian pretenses dooms the masses to the tragedy of pretending at qualities and achievements they can never truly attain… ”
The problem is the view of egalitarian pretenses becomes a twisted view of equality, due to the pseudo-intellectualism, that all men are equal stock. No man is the same, we are gifted by God with different skills and paths in our lives. One’s abilities can yield different opportunities that yield to different outcomes and paths we take. We are all equal in the eyes of God for he gave us life and given us the freedom of choice on how we face out difficulties. This is the true equality that men all share, to be moral man with God’s grace or grade A fuck up to walk down the treacherous road of Damnation.
Great article Aurelius! Definitely strikes to the heart of today’s problems.
Aurelius Moner – mmmmm – your lack of humility is quite telling. I
guess you fancy yourself as the final arbiter of the good in your own
life, as should be the case for every person, …… and I sense you
do have some self-awareness around the inescapably of this human
condition, and as such the better health that flows for a pragmatic
embracing of this inescapable truth, as opposed to the lesser health
that would flow from any of the various delusions of denial around
this issue, ….. such improper denials that are available to any of
us.
But …… if I have not been too far-reaching in my assumption
about that state of your own self-awareness, then methinks …..
mmmmm …. “Would Aurelius Moner naturally not therefore conclude
that others are subject to this same final self-arbitration as to the
good in their own lives?” If one embraces such obvious conclusion,
it is then not at all hard to see, that it is rather pretentious to
presume that one can fancy oneself the final arbiter of the good in
the lives of others. There is an element of contempt and
condescension apparent in psychically positioning oneself as such.
Aurelius Moner – what says you? ……. is the natural humility,
that is implied by the simple logical operation as I have indicated
above, by way of the extension of the properties of the singular
perspective (i.e. – that each person is naturally inescapably the
final arbiter of the good in their own life) onto the many
perspectives, not follow? Am I then not incorrect to imply, by
simply logic, that your position therefore reeks of contempt and
condescension, by way of usurping the rights from others, …. said
rights that you personally presume for yourself nevertheless?
I’m not quite sure what you mean; perhaps there is a language barrier, here.
You seem to be implying that having convictions about the Good is tantamount to making one’s self “the final arbiter of the good,” and that this is contemptuous and prideful, while also affirming that people should be the final arbiters of the good in their own lives. This is the incoherence of Liberalism, to which I more than once referred.
The conviction that you should have the final arbitration of the good in your own life, and that I should live in a world governed by this principle rather than by the view I advanced here, is equally “oppressive” by your standards, and is in fact more oppressive objectively.
Hello Aurelius Moner – thank-you for your response and consideration.
You said:
“You seem to be implying that having convictions about the Good
is tantamount to making one’s self “the final arbiter of the
good,” and that this is contemptuous and prideful, while also
affirming that people should be the final arbiters of the good in
their own lives.”
No – that is not at all what I said. I said that each person is naturally inescapably the final arbiter of the good in their own life, and since this is an inescapable fact about the human condition, it is much better (more healthy) to embrace this reality, – it is much better to gain self-awareness wrt this condition we are all subject to. Aurelius Moner – perhaps it is this basic assertion that you are taking issue with, as the remainder of my comments (wrt the charge of contempt and condescension) naturally follows, by way of simple logic, from this basic assertion, if one does not prescribe to solipsism, and therefore agrees that there are basic human similarities wrt ontological capacity around proclivities for
personal agency shared among us all (excepting extreme outliers
perhaps)? Or perhaps you do prescribe to a solipsistic outlook?
So ….. I should first address whether you have a disagreement
with me wrt whether my assertion that each person is naturally
inescapably the final arbiter of the good in their own life, is a
valid assertion or not.
You have brought up liberalism, which in it’s emphasis wrt the
rights, responsibilities and liberties of the individual, is very
much in keeping with my above provided similar basic assertions wrt
the individual. So my meanings are in keeping with the foundational
concepts around liberalism. Are yours though? You said:
“But to truly attain a liberal education, which is the
traditional and indispensable education of the aristocracy (because
it is “liberal” not in the sense of being “Left,” obviously,
but of being conducive to maximizing true liberty—not license—in
one’s self and in society), one needs, in addition to sufficient
virtue, the gifts of a keen intellect and sufficient prosperity for
the means of education. These are not in the competence of most
people.”
So liberalism for some and not for others? For lack of aptitude?
Ludicrous. That stance is antithetical to the basic foundational
principles of liberalism. So I would therefore assume your stance is
anti-liberalism (despite you odd use of the word “liberal” in the
above passage). The rest of your article speaks for the support of
an elitist paternalism (i.e. – in support of a “aristocratic hierarchy”). So Aurelius Moner – where are you on the liberalism thing (as accurately defined) – yea or nay?
You said:
“The political ideologies and theories that have driven the
chaos of the past centuries were always rooted in vain pretenses of
pseudo-intellectualism; no person or class of persons is wise enough
to manage such a chaotic element in a society; the masses, especially
(including somewhat clever folk), will never understand what these
theories pretend to know. The intrusion into daily life of
pseudo-intellectual ideology, and of modern “politics,” is itself
unnatural and constitutive of a crisis.”
Aurelius Moner – can you not see how poor the logic of your
position is? What defence have you against those that will point out
that since “no person or class of persons is wise enough to manage
such a chaotic element in a society”, that you must then show how
your version of intellectualism is not also “pseudo-
intellectualism”, however you have shown no such thing.
I think your confusion stems from a misunderstanding as to what
the egalitarian (which is actually the prescription of the
foundational liberalism) actually is. I conclude this by your
statement:
“To justify the overthrowing of the nobility and its traditional
culture of virtue and transcendence, we adapted a rhetoric and a
culture of egalitarianism, assuming that all men were “equal” in
the raw, and, given the opportunity (via education and prosperity),
would govern themselves wisely and well. Hence two powerful engines
of egalitarianism are universal education and the redistribution of
wealth. As reality increasingly disproves this absurd, revolutionary
thesis, the goal of equal opportunity is increasingly revised to
mandate the expectation of equality of outcomes. Equality is
mandatory, lest the theory be falsified!We, the intelligent and
educated, know that our theories can’t be false! “
To conflate the egalitarian with “the expectation of equality of
outcomes” is a subversion of the original egalitarian principles,
and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous at best (perhaps you are
agreeing with me on this). I don’t disagree that this subversive
misunderstanding of the egalitarian is now rampant, all round, and
causing a lot of social problems, but you certainly are not helping
matters by way of your obfuscation.
I have some specific ideas about the egalitarian, as per my 3
comments, in the comment section here:
https://krauserpua.com/2016/02/18/the-german-idealist-tradition-in-philosophy-and-daygame/
Aurelius Moner – what says you about the egalitarian as so
defined?
I see two primary confusions, here.
1) Please define for me, exactly what you mean by saying a man is the “final arbiter of the good in his own life.”
2) “Liberal” in “Liberal Arts” has nothing to do with Liberalism. The word “liber” in Latin means “free-born” and, often, simply “child” (assuming one is talking about free Romans’ children). The “Liberal Arts” were so called, because it is the education that a free-born man would have, bestowing the ability both to free himself from ignorance and sloppy thinking, and to lead a free society, and to be as self-sufficient as possible through acquiring a knowledge (then nearly encyclopedic) of how the world around him worked.
“Liberalism” is a political philosophy that asserts people have “rights” to believe, propagate and do things that may or may not be right – that they should be “free” to choose what manners, ideals, and beliefs they think best, and that authority should defer to this. It is actually antithetical to the principles taught in a Liberal Education. The fact that Liberals think a “Liberal Education” is important to Liberalism, proves my point that most people are intellectual mediocrities who don’t understand what they are playing with. Hence, virtue is the real business of man, not “education” and Liberalism and its egalitarian philosophies. The most education that the average person will profit from, is basic literacy and arithmetic. Persons with the capacity or interest can be trained for specific disciplines; but people need to understand that the real ideal of a Liberal Education is simply beyond most people’s grasp.
The title, “Why Men Cannot Be Both Free And Equal”, was promising. The subtitle, “The masses will never fully understand great things”, made me wonder a bit. I gave up trying to understand the piece before long though.
The Editor modified my titles somewhat, not exactly as I would have chosen. But I don’t think it altered the point, significantly.
The point of the article was to respond to the idea that we should eschew anything too complex and dangerous for the masses to understand. The idea that everything important should be within the competence of any “normal” person, and the Egalitarian scam that goes along with that, is central to the crisis of modernity. A return to hierarchy, where people manage their successive spheres of influence and yield to what is above them, all the way up to the high culture and profound, rich tradition of the society’s most sublime art, laws, customs and institutions, with virtue as the common ideal, is a more natural approach to a society of men.
Where can I read the original article, which you were responding to, proposing that everybody should eschew anything too complex and dangerous for the masses to understand?
One must climb upwards to scale high culture, but one has to swim downwards in order to plumb the depths of profound tradition.
Not an article, just a comment from the combox of my previous article.
To recycle a thought of Andy Warhol’s, your blog seems to be eating itself.
Perform with the patriarchal instincts you’re born with and never trust the management.
Thank you for a great article, although I’m not entirely sure what is meant by transcendent and connection to the transcendent. Perhaps I will pick it up somewhere. I think this article contains a true view of the world though and I hope one day our society can realise this and operate on a more sane and happier basis.
I intend to establish myself and my family as a new nobility. What are you’re thoughts on the Catholic prophesy about the coming emperor?
We shape our life through our free will and when that will and our conscience is enlightened by and directed toward God and we find ourselves living a life of virtue, only then have we attained true freedom.
On the part about hierarchy. Not all people are equal in condition and we shouldn’t be. What makes us all equal is our inherent dignity. The aristocracy is not and never has been as a group more virtuous and deserving of authority. If anything they tend to be more corrupt in denying the dignity of the people below them. Pride, vanity, greed, gluttony in many forms is seen throughout the aristocracy. Class, status in society, money, none of those have anything do do with virtue or dignity.
If all people strived to live the virtues we would have a more pleasant society of people, equal in the dignity of life, but at the same time unequal and content with their condition. Just leaders ruling by wisdom and right discernment.
I agree entirely with the article. We have a saying that fish always stinks from the head.
In a way, the princes were the first liberals when they ‘freed’ themselves from their ‘chains’ (limitations of power). They often used the third estate against aristocracy, concentrated power in their hands and founded the modern bureaucratic state. That was when an absolute monarchy was introduced to European societies. The reaction of aristocracy was similar. They (the more radical of them) used the third estate to overthrow kings. And so revolutions have begun.
Of course, this is a very simplified version of what happened historically but the dynamics can be found there. The mediaeval society lost the transcendent ideal and worldly matters became the only thing that matter…
The nobility arose through force and not virtue. They were traditionally the warrior class. They might rule by appearing to be virtuous, but this is largely to prevent the peasants and other nobles from plotting against them, and there is always an implicit assumption of state violence if you don’t behave.
It’s quite hard to attribute virtuousness to someone like the Marquis de Sade who was an extreme example of French nobility, but more like the tip of the iceberg than anything atypical. Even when he fell foul of the law, he always got off lightly- even prison was just a slap of the wrist for him as he still lived in a certain amount of luxury and comfort, whereas a poor person would be hanged for the same crimes.
If the nobility didn’t suffer consequences for acting in a dishonourable manner, then it was no wonder they acted in ways that caused the French to revolt. I’m not buying the author’s argument that nobility are inherently virtuous, because virtue is for the little people who are held accountable to the law, whereas the upper classes can avoid accountability via wealth and privilege. The author has a naive and idealistic view of them.
Rampant inequality is not freedom any more than equality is. The freedom to starve isn’t freedom. Absolute liberty is just as oppressive and tyrannical than insufficient liberty and a just society has to lie somewhere between the two extremes. Taxing those who have too much to give to those who have too little is far from tyranny and in pre-Revolutionary France it was very much the other way around which most certainly is tyranny.
“As reality increasingly disproves this absurd, revolutionary thesis, the goal of equal opportunity is increasingly revised to mandate the expectation of equality of outcomes.”
I found this to be an excellent statement. It is always good to point out that there are two different ideas of “equality” (opportunity vs. outcomes). What we witness today is the inevitable conclusion of selling the idea that humans can have equality of outcomes regardless of drive, intelligence, opportunities, or ability. That side of the “equality” argument is all about “feelings”. The logical side recognizes that perhaps the best “equality” that any society can hope for is not placing arbitrary obstructions in the way of its members rising to the best of their abilities; After that, nature imposes its own limits and obstructions, and that is just life.
I will admit that I had some trepidation while reading this article with its emphasis on “aristocracy”. I have a strong aversion to any system which entrusts its leadership to an hereditary class of people for whom power is considered a “birthright”. However, I will grant that history is not so black and white. For the many stories of the hedonism, excess, and cruelty of so-called nobility, there are also many stories of the noble class doing great things that helped the people and lands under their charge.
It was your concluding paragraph that helped allay many of the concerns I had about returning to an aristocracy, even though your entire article emphasized an aristocracy built on virtue and merit. Perhaps something along the lines of a small, independent farmer taking a strong, virtuous leadership role in his local governing body, say his county council, but at the same time, being able to follow a strong, virtuous businessman in a governing body over his, say his state legislature. Each man is a citizen, each man has a sphere of influence and responsibility, and each man is being guided by his virtue and morality, but one man is sitting higher than the other. The “Liberal Progressive” mindset would probably see some kind of oppression or exploitation inherent in a system that fosters this arrangement. Yet, many of us here, see no problem with this at all. The major weakness though, quite obviously, is the virtuous and moral leaders part, by which I mean, is it possible to have a human system that can supply virtuous and moral leaders on consistent basis as such men are more likely to loathe seeking power and eschew trying to gain dominion over their fellow men.
“The chief aim of a society should therefore be prudently to encourage virtue and punish vice, for then the battle is more than half-won, whereas all the “rights” you could care to claim will not save you from a vicious society. ”
Think this is really right. (Although I might say to “discourage vice” rather than “punish” it–to do whatever it takes to stamp vice out; it’s an empirical question whether or not that’s punishment.)
But this makes me wonder what people here think about early “feminists” like Mary Wollstonecraft, one of whose major arguments was that women’s *moral* education was deficient–that women were being raised to be pleasing and charming but not honest or industrious. (Of course she was only talking about women of her own social class.)
I appreciate the view here that mainstream feminism in this country has become about victimhood. But I think there’s a nice original insight that what’s a virtue in a man is a virtue in a woman, and vice versa. (Of course it will look different for the two sexes…. In a man courage might look like physically stepping up to stop an assault against a weaker party, whereas in a woman courage might look like verbally stepping up to decry an injustice against a weaker party.)